Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Postal Codes

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to encourage the use of postal codes as a substitute for writing the name of the town, village or district in view of the fact that it is unnecessary to put both in an address.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation so to design its postal codes as to preserve to the fullest possible extent the individual names of smaller towns and villages.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): No, Sir. The form of postal addresses is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Chapman: It gives me great pleasure to be the first in the House to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new and important post and also on becoming a member of the Privy Council. May I put it to him that whatever feelings the public may have about the postal codes—and they are considerably mixed—it is absurd to expect people to put both the full postal code and the full address on the mail they send?

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about me. I think it is necessary to continue

to write the full address primarily as a safeguard but also because it will be needed in any event for parcels and packets.

Mr. Money: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the matter goes further than that? Although postal codes may be a necessary device for the convenience of the Post Office, their total acceptance is really getting us far too near 1984. To reduce the House of Commons to SW1A 0AA is creating a battery hen situation as far as we are concerned.

Sir J. Eden: The postal codes are being introduced and the Post Office is anxious to see their use adopted as widely as possible because they carry with them real prospects of economy in operation.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress has been made by the Post Office Corporation in the introduction of postal coding; and what estimate he has made of the expenditure involved, which he has sanctioned.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that it has introduced codes for about 16 million of the country's 20 million addresses at a cost of about £4½ million.

Mr. Morris: I thank the Member for his reply, but is he aware that only 13 out of a planned 100 sorting offices are equipped with machinery for scanning postal codes and that this situation tends to convince people that it makes little difference whether or not they use the postal codes? Will he give a firm target date for the completion of the postal code system?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his question. On the last part of his question, the Post Office aims to complete the postal code programme by this year.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his new appointment, tell us whether it makes any difference to put the postal code on an envelope?

Sir J. Eden: So far as it is possible to adopt the practice of writing the postal codes on the addresses, this will enormously facilitate the mechanical sorting of letters, speed up delivery and produce economies in the Post Office.

First-class Mail

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of first-class letters is now being delivered on the following day.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the survey recently carried out by the Post Office Users National Council on the efficiency of the first-class mail service, details of which are in his possession.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations were made to him by the Post Office Users National Council as a result of the survey relating to the letter delivery service.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of first-class letters was being delivered the day after posting at the last available date.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has had with the Post Office Corporation on the Report of the Post Office Users National Council of its monitoring exercise on the delivery of first-class mail.

Sir J. Eden: No representations have been made by the Post Office Users National Council since its survey. Obviously statistics vary according to the particlar sampling method, but the Post Office is determined to work for continuing improvement in mail delivery throughout the country.

Mr. Tilney: I, too, wish my right hon. Friend much success in his new post. Is he aware that there is a percentage of first-class mail which is not delivered the following day and that many provincial firms have to employ couriers to take their mail to other parts of the country? Is it not time that the Post Office considered means whereby it could ensure for a premium that a letter posted one day was delivered the next?

Sir J. Eden: I think my hon. Friend recognises that there will always be some letters which will not be delivered the next day for particular reasons but, so far as it is possible, it is the purpose of the Post Office to eliminate delay. I am

satisfied of that. It very much depends also on the time at which many of these letters are posted. Some of them are posted after the last moment at which first delivery next day would be possible.

Mr. Ewing: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. His success will depend largely on his own efforts, as the success of all postal workers depends on their own efforts. The guarantee of delivery of a letter depends a great deal on a happy workforce—a workforce not cut back in the manner which this workforce has been cut back in recent years—and even more on the speeding-up of the postal mechanisation programme promised earlier, in order that services can achieve the efficiency to which everyone who works for the postal service is dedicated.

Sir J. Eden: The programme of mechanisation is going ahead well and it is in no way being held up, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The main objective, which the whole House shares, is that there should be the most efficient possible service of mail delivery, and it motivates all ranks in the Post Office.

Mr. Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to confirm what his predecessor said on several occasions, that the Post Office is operating one of the most efficient and cheapest postal services anywhere in the world——

Mr. Fell: Really!

Mr. Price: Why do you not shut your mouth, just for once?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. Price: That was not meant for the Chair. There is no doubt for whom it was intended. It was not for the first time and no doubt will not be the last.

Mr. Speaker: I call upon the Minister to reply.

Mr. Price: I have not asked my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am under constant pressure from hon. Members to get through Questions more quickly. The hon. Member should not make personal remarks.

Mr. Price: On a point of order. My supplementary question had been in order until then and I had not finished it.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman now put his supplementary question succinctly?

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Post Office figure of 94 per cent. or does he accept the figure of other organisations which is much lower?

Sir J. Eden: It is not for me to accept or reject any figure. I am determined, with the assistance of the Post Office, to bring about a steady improvement in the standard of service.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the microphones are not working. Would hon. Members please speak up.

Mr. Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he were to accept the figure produced by the Post Office Users National Council of 82 per cent. it makes suspect the system used by the Post Office which produced a figure of 94 per cent.? Is he satisfied that the system of monitoring used by the Post Office is efficient and is producing the right results?

Sir J. Eden: That is why I referred in my answer to the first supplementary question to the different methods of sampling. The Post Office has used one method regularly on a month-by-month basis. The council's survey was more limited and was restricted to certain months in the year, October and February to be precise. All these surveys show that there is still room for improvement and I hope I have been able to reassure the House that it will be the objective of the Post Office to continue improving the service of mail delivery throughout the country.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: May I, as one who seldom if ever has agreed with a word that the Minister has said—and I cannot think of a nicer thing for a Socialist to say to a Tory—offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for a happy if short term of office? No matter how the figures were arrived at, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a deterioration, albeit minimal, in the service provided? Is

he aware that this is not the fault of the postmen? Is he prepared to give me the assurance which was given by his predecessor and will he look at the mechanisation investment programme once again to see whether in the light of delivery surveys and by increasing employment he can accelerate this?

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, even if they were somewhat circumscribed. I look forward to seeing him opposite me for a long time to come. I can assure him that not only will I look afresh at the mechanisation programme but I will keep under review the total investment programme of the Post Office.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to improve the number of letters bearing first-class franking which are delivered at their destination on the following day.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The Post Office is making every effort towards that end.

Mr. Whitehead: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the discontent which has been expressed in the House today merits such a directive, but that if a directive were to be issued the Post Office would almost certainly tell him that letters would be delivered more speedily if there were more and better paid postment? In view of the present structural unemployment in the economy, should we not be expanding the service industries, particularly the Post Office?

Sir J. Eden: No, this is not a matter of numbers or of pay. The rate of delivery at the first post is very high, as hon. Members recognise, but large numbers of people do not get letters delivered when they expect to do so and think this arises primarily out of the establishment of the two-tier system. The Post Office is constantly looking at this matter to seek ways of improving delivery.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has been necessary for me to report to the Chairman of the Post Office Board and the officials concerned first-class letters sent from County Hall to the Palace of Westminster which have taken four days to deliver?


If the letters were dropped in the street they would sometimes arrive more quickly.

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Post Office Users National Council's report which has just been made available emphasises that this is a management matter for the Post Office. This it must be, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will bring these matters to the attention of the Post Office.

Mr. Lewis: I have done so.

Sir J. Eden: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that no one, least of all myself as Minister, is in any way sanguine about this, but we must realise that there are 16 million first-class letters a day being delivered, which is a very substantial number.

Television (Concessionary Licences)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now extend the concessionary television licence now applicable to pensioners living in purpose-built accommodation to cover also disabled relatives who are compelled to live with them, in the light of correspondence from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.

Sir J. Eden: The special licence for old people living in old persons' homes was provided not as a welfare concession but to correct an anomaly in the licensing requirements for old people. Whilst it has not been Government policy to give cheap licences on welfare grounds I wish to look further into the details of the particular case which the hon. Gentleman has drawn to my attention.

Mr. Ashton: May I thank the Minister for that reply? Is he aware that if an old lady lives alone she may qualify for a cheap licence but that if she takes in her disabled son, both of them being on supplementary benefit—and there is nowhere else for him to go—she will not get such a licence? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this not simply as it applies to my constituent in Carlton, near Worksop, but as it applies to other cases when old people look after disabled relatives?

Sir J. Eden: I will look not just at this case in isolation but at the implications which it has. This is not a simple

matter and that is why I must plead for further time to go into details.

Telephones (Concessionary Rentals)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications which organisations have now written to him asking him to give a general direction to the Post Office to grant concessionary telephone rentals to registered charities; and what replies he has sent.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that charities are treated as businesses and it is absolutely ridiculous when by definition they are not operating for profit? Is he aware that certain charities, such as the Samaritans, use the telephone as an essential part of the work they do and face particular difficulties in this respect, frequently operating from private homes? Why cannot there be a special category for charities or social services with, if necessary, a Government subsidy to compensate the Post Office for loss of revenue?

Sir J. Eden: I do not think it would be right to impose welfare responsibilities on a business organisation such as the Post Office or, for that matter, on other nationalised industries. This has been the view of successive Governments. In any case there is the opportunity to provide aid for telephone charges to those in need through the social services.

Giro

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, having regard to the mounting loss of the Post Office Giro, whether he will now state his estimate of the cumulative Giro loss at the financial year end, 31st March, 1972, of the Post Office Corporation; and how he proposes, by loan or other wise, to finance such loss.

Sir J. Eden: I have no later figures than those given to my hon. Friend on 19th January, and would ask him to await the board's report and accounts for this year.—[Vol. 829, c. 433.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will not be until the autumn? As the Giro is continuing to lose large sums of money and has already lost £25 million, and is the lamest


of all lame ducks, would it not be appropriate for a new Minister to sweep the yard clean and get rid of this unwanted service, handing it over to the joint stock banks which already have equivalent and much better services?

Sir J. Eden: A decision about the future of Giro has already been taken and it is now our aim to ensure that it improves in profitability.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we hope he will reject the opinion of his hon. Friend that it is a lame duck? Is he further aware that this is a very useful service for many people? Does he realise that it has been suggested by the Post Office and from these benches on many occasions that the best way the Minister could encourage the use of Giro would be for him and his Government colleagues to give a lead by enabling Government Departments to use the Giro service to the fullest extent?

Sir J. Eden: The last point raised by the hon. Getleman is a matter for individual Government Departments.

Telephones (Push-Button Dialling)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when it is estimated that pushbutton telephone dialling will be available to subscribers.

Sir J. Eden: This is a marketing matter for the Post Office, which recently announced field trials of a new pushbutton telephone with a view to general introduction next year.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that frequently I have to dial half a dozen times to get places such as Nuneaton from London? If he will not do anything about the outdated exchange equipment, will be please do something about the dialling mechanism?

Sir J. Eden: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's frustration. Many of us have had experience of misdialling and other such things. I am sure that the more rapid introduction of new techniques will be of immense assistance in this respect.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of recent publicity about the existence of a little black book containing the telephone

numbers of the lady friends of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), would my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety over the introduction of push-button dialling is because he frequently gets a busy line?

Telephone Equipment (Contract Delays)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the latest position nationally with regard to the supply of telephone equipment by contractors to the Post Office and the extent of delays.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office informs me that some 33 per cent. of contracts for exchange equipment were subject to delay at the end of January. Although improvements are being made, I am keeping in touch with the position.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inordinate delay means that many persons who applied for the installation of domestic telephones in February last will have to wait until November, 1973? Could he not do something about it? It is not possible to establish factories in development districts and put the unemployed to work producing equipment, thus minimising this unfortunate delay?

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is right that delays are responsible for a substantial percentage of the waiting list. I am concerned about this and am having discussions with the major contractors and the Post Office.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are no longer prepared to accept the argument that we have been getting from his predecessor, namely, that previous investment programmes are the cause of the delay? Is he aware that firms have given delivery dates and the 18 months' delay is on these delivery dates? Will he co-operate with the Ministers in his former Department to deal with this?

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of these delays in deliveries relate to crossbar equipment on which there have been special development problems. Having said that, however, I emphasise that this is a matter for very


great concern, and I am having discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Parcel Post

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of parcel post is now delivered on the following day; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: About one-third.

Mr. O'Halloran: Does the Minister realise that it takes up to a week for a parcel posted in London to be delivered inside London? Will he consider investigating this with a view to providing a general improvement in the whole service of the parcel post?

Sir J. Eden: The delivery of parcels by the second working day after posting has in fact improved from 71 per cent. to 76 per cent. since the Post Office's last annual report. There is a variety of different means by which parcels can be delivered, and I think it is up to the individual to determine the service which will give him the most satisfaction. Here again, however, this is a matter which I know gives rise to a good deal of concern within the Post Office in ensuring that wherever delays arise they can be overcome. Very often, as the hon. Gentleman knows, these are not wholly within the hands of the Post Office itself.

European Economic Community

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to what extent entry into the European Economic Community will affect the British posts, telephone and telecommunications system so far as costs to the consumer are concerned; and to what extent he will be able to arrange for free and subsidised telephone services to retirement pensioners and the sick and disabled under existing European Economic Community regulations on Great Britain's entry.

Sir J. Eden: Our entry will not involve any commitment to alter postal or telephone tariffs. Aid for the needy will continue to be a matter for the social services.

Mr. Lewis: Irrespective of what the EEC may say, can the Post Office and

the Minister carry out any form of subsidy, help and assistance without reference to the Community, such as is suggested in the Question to people of this sort? Would the Minister be able to take legislative action here without reference to the Community?

Sir J. Eden: Yes. This is primarily a matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for the social service departments, but this is certainly the case.

Television Relay Stations

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what steps he is taking to increase financial provision to the British Broadcasting Corporation in order to permit it to increase the engineering staff whose duties are the installation and erection of television relay stations, so as to cut down the period of two years now takes by the British Broadcasting Corporation to get a relay station on the air after all site acquisition is completed.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir. Money is not in any case the decisive factor.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a delay of two years and that it is absolutely intolerable, in particular in areas such as mine, in Derbyshire, where the reception of all types of television is appalling? The BBC has informed me that there is a lack of trained staff. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to improve the situation, because it is quite intolerable for my constituents, as for many others elsewhere in a situation similar to that of mine?

Sir J. Eden: I of course have every sympathy with the views which my hon. Frend has expressed, and I recognise the force of the point he has made. He has stressed the non-availability of some staff, I will look into this matter in consultation with the authorities concerned, but I think it is right we should recognise that this must be a developing system which is best built up by stages to ensure maxium efficiency of a nationwide service.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that I, as a constituent of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), can testify that there are many areas in


Derbyshire where it is impossible to pick up two out of three of the television services? Would it not be better for the Government to allocate resources for this rather than to push ahead with their regional radio service?

Sir J. Eden: No, this is not due wholly to financial resources. It is much more due to the factors which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend.

BBC (Chairman of Governors)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress he is making in his consultations regarding a new Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply of 22nd March given by my predecessor to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).—[Vol. 833, c. 1480.]

Mr. Winterton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the senior management and the Governors of the BBC should show more concern for the content and presentation of BBC programmes? I believe that this was clearly not the case with the "British Empire" series. Would my right hon. Friend further agree that they should show much more concern for this in the future?

Sir J. Eden: As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Chairman and Governors who have ultimate responsibility not only for running the corporation but also for acting as trustees for the public. While I recognise that there will be individual programmes which may cause public disquiet, it is for the public to express these views to the corporation and to the authorities concerned.

Commercial Radio

Mr. Gorst: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommuncations if he will announce where the next commercial local radio stations to be set up after those in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow will be located.

Sir J. Eden: No yet, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay in doing so.

Mr. Gorst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that failure to announce where the next stations will be is discouraging many people from entering the list to compete for these franchises, which by all accounts are likely to be extremely unprofitable as matters stand? Will he give early and urgent consideration to announcing what the frequencies not only of the later stations but of the earlier ones will be, so that they may be subjected to the most careful public scrutiny?

Sir J. Eden: Of course, I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, but I think it is premature to talk at this stage about discouragement. I think we must move nearer to the day when the IBA becomes established.

Broadcasting Council

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what fresh representations he has received on the need for an independent broadcasting council.

Sir J. Eden: None since 1st March, when my hon. Friend asked a similar Question.—[Vol. 832, c. 398.]

Mr. Fowler: That is probably because the public have not yet caught up with my right hon. Friend in his new appointment. Will he recognise that the call for a broadcasting council is a call not for censorship but to try to find means whereby the public may have some kind of redress? Rather than give a snap answer to the call for an independent broadcasting council today, will my right hon. Friend at least say that he will be prepared to give fresh consideration to this question?

Sir J. Eden: I naturally have a great deal of interest in any question or proposition put forward by my hon. Friend, and I certainly do not dismiss this out of hand.

Telephone Charges

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is yet able to make an announcement on increased telephone charges.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The Post Office Users National Council has not yet completed its consideration of the Post Office proposals.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware of the great importance of not allowing the telephone service to lose its financial viability at the present time? Is he further aware that there is a case for study for increased charges to business subscribers rather than to residential subscribers?

Sir J. Eden: I see no danger of the first point which the hon. Member makes. As for the second point, I think this is more a matter for Post Office initiative.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that, at a time when the demands for telephones seem to be continually so much in advance of the supply, the Post Office would do much better by trying to increase the number of its customers than by increasing its prices?

Sir J. Eden: I think that this again is mainly a matter for the Post Office, which has to take into account the manufacturing capacity to meet any increase in demand.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that the one thing which we in this House or the country are not prepared to accept is any system of rationing by price? While we recognise the need for increased money, we think—I hope that the Minister will consider this—that perhaps the way to do it would be by looking at the prospects of selling more telephones to increase telephone calls. Would the Minister be prepared to examine rather more seriously the notion put forward by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and from this side of the House the last time we discussed this matter that fresh ways of raising the money should be considered?

Sir J. Eden: I think I can certainly reply in the affirmative to the last part of that supplementary question. As to the first part, I am certain we shall see steadily increasing usage of telephones throughout the country.

Television Licence Fees

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent approaches have been made to him by the British Broadcasting Corporation requesting an increase in television licence fees.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister assure the House that he will go through his period of office, however short, without being a party to increasing the television licence fee?

Sir J. Eden: I do not like giving too many assurances at the outset of what I hope to be a long and happy occupation of this office.

Telephone Exchange and Stored Programme Control Techniques

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what development is taking place, within the capital programme which he has authorised, on telephone exchange and stored programme control techniques; and when it is expected that a commercially viable system of stored programme control can be introduced.

Sir J. Eden: Research and development are primarily matters for the Post Office and I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the hon. Gentleman on 9th February.—[Vol. 830, c. 1320–1.]

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that Government grants towards the development of stored programme control should be taken into consideration when decisions are taken on whether to adopt TXE4 equipment, and that these are direct grants to the National Research Development Corporation?

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office does not expect to decide on its proposals for the next generation of telephone equipment before the end of this year. It will then come to me for approval of its long-term capital programme. In the meantime, I am keeping myself informed of developments and I will ensure that the Post Office takes into account all the relevant considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing (London)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the three greater London boroughs with the highest number of post-war housing completions.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Havering, Bromley and Southward, in that order.

Mr. Hunt: Does not the fact that the London Borough of Bromley stands so high in the Greater London league table give the lie to those in the House and outside who have been mounting a malicious, unfounded and politically motivated campaign against the housing programmes in my borough?

Mr. Eyre: We are very pleased with Bromley's performance, and the Government's position is quite clear. We look to all house building agencies, both public and private, to increase their output of dwellings in London. Inner London's housing problems cannot be solved without help from the outer boroughs.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the variable factors involved, are not comparisons between London boroughs meaningless? Will the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appearance here today, bear in mind that it is ridiculous to have in the greater London area 32 borough housing authorities, each one of which regards the inhabitants of the other 31 as aliens who are not allowed to cross the frontier from one borough to another?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his kind remarks, fairly draws attention to other London boroughs which have made a contribution.

Association Football

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the decision of the High Court in Cooke v. Football Association Limited, he will now reconsider his decision not to become involved with the football authorities in discussions relating to the law concerning transfers of players.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) on 10th April.—[Vol. 834, c. 127.]

Mr. Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if he could tell the Football League and the Football Association, when those two institutions

stop squabbling, that the ultimate decision about for whom highly skilled football players should play should rest with the players, a great deal would be achieved, just as it would be if his right hon. Friend introduced tax incentives for ground improvement rather than for trading in players and asked the League to set the transfer deadline earlier to stop the domination of the League by the eight or nine richest clubs, with one or two honourable exceptions?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman represents an area whose club still has aspirations. The financial aspects are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I regret the difference of opinion between the two football authorities, but it is a matter for them.

Mr. Money: Will my hon. Friend say when the talks he expects to have with representatives of the Football Association, as mentioned in his Written Answer of 10th April, will take place? Will he bear in mind, in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), that Ipswich Town has just taken nine points in five games, illustrating that the First Division is not dominated by the nine or ten richest clubs?

Mr. Griffiths: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his avid support of the club, from which I am glad to see the club is benefiting. I have frequent meetings with the football authorities at which I discuss these matters with them, but I must insist that questions of football management are in the first instance a matter for the football authorities and not for me.

Housing Land

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated acreage of land owned by local authorities scheduled for housing on which development has not yet reached an advanced planning stage.

Mr. Eyre: Because of difficulties of definition insufficient information is available on which to make a reasonable estimate.

Mr. Rost: Are not too many Labour-controlled local authorities deliberately


sabotaging the Government's house building programme by dragging their feet on planning consents and hoarding land which should be either developed quickly or sold off to increase the land supply stock? Is not this adding to the spiralling cost of houses and land as well as maintaining unemployment in the building industry?

Mr. Eyre: It is for housing authorities to assess the needs of their areas and to act accordingly. We are looking to see whether any land can be released for housing among all the holdings over which the Government have influence, and we are urgently reviewing the planning procedures.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman try to do something to correct the damaging effect of a recent speech by the Minister for Local Government and Development in which he seemed to indicate a willingness to throw overboard any question of planning standards to satisfy private builders?

Mr. Eyre: On the contrary. I maintain that there are adequate safeguards within the proposals spelt out by my hon. Friend and that a strong look at the planning procedures is necessary to bring housing sites on to the market.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend any information about what proportion of unused land is owned by local authorities?

Mr. Eyre: No, I am afraid that precise information is not available.

Mr. Crosland: May I also add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State? As it becomes increasingly clear that the Government have no land policy of any kind, except to bring pressure to bear on local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State the urgent need to make a statement on Government policy—if any—to this House?

Mr. Eyre: I should like to stress that a complete review of planning procedures is now being urgently undertaken.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment at what distance from central London he estimates the advanced passenger train, travelling

via the Channel Tunnel, will provide quicker city-centre service than travel from London by air.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I regret that at present no worthwhile estimates can be made.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was given a recent answer to the effect that the travel time from central London to the centre of Paris via the Channel Tunnel and the advanced passenger train amounted to 2 hours and 40 minutes as opposed to 3¾ hours by air from Heathrow and a likely longer period from Foulness? Is he further aware that at the moment 24 per cent. of flights from Heathrow are flights of under300 miles and 38 per cent. of flights are less than 500 miles? Would he agree that much of this traffic is susceptible to direct competition from fast trains? Is he still convinced that we need four 19,000 feet runways at Foulness, with the Channel Tunnel being planned nearby?

Mr. Griffiths: I admire my hon. Friend's careful research, but I assure him that the interaction between the tunnel and the new third London airport is being carefully studied in my Department.

Bypass (Redbourn)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now include a Redbourn bypass on A5 in the preparation list.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The proposed scheme will be considered for possible inclusion in the next extension of the trunk road preparation pool.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in judging the needs for a new road there is a danger in giving greater consideration to congestion rather than to dangers on the road itself? Will he give high priority to this road, much of which runs through narrow high streets with consequent grave danger to residents?

Mr. Speed: We hope to announce inclusion of some additional small schemes in the trunk road preparation pool within two or three months and the Redbourn bypass is being considered. I


cannot say whether it will be included in this scheme. In the meantime the Department is studying further safety measures as a matter of urgency.

Waterways

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now reconsidered his plan to wind up the British Waterways Board and to hand over its responsibilities to regional water authorities in the light of representations made to him.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Government's intention remains that responsibility for the waterways should be taken over by the new regional water authorities. Within this framework consultations continue with the British Waterways Board as to the best form of management of the waterways.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the British Waterways Board has been in existence only since 1968, during which time it has functioned effectively and well? Does he further appreciate that our waterways are of direct economic value, besides being important as growing centres for leisure and pleasure, as is certainly the case in my own constituency and in South Wales generally? Does he not feel that to obstruct the waterways at this stage is nothing short of economic vandalism?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's point is absurd, and he knows it. My right hon. Friend is anxious to promote the best interests of the waterways for recreation, amenity and commercial navigation wherever practicable. I am confident that this will be achieved under our proposals.

Mr. Winterton: What assurances can my hon. Friend give that further stretches of canal which are of growing importance for recreational use will not be closed under the new set-up?

Mr. Griffiths: The statutory obligations are intended to be identical with those that exist today, and wherever a sensible and viable scheme can be put forward my right hon. Friend will gladly look at it.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many stretches of canal are fit for nothing else but closure, and

that one canal at Bootle has been described as a murderous, killing sewer, that there is no hope for it and that it has not been used for 20 years? Whether the hon. Gentleman changes the present set-up or maintains it, will he at least see that working-class areas like mine are properly represented on the board?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure my right hon. Friend is anxious that all sections of the community shall be properly represented. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is a good one. We are seeking to achieve the best use of all our water supplies. It may be that in some areas the best use lies in amenity water parks for beauty or conservation and not simply navigation. We have to look at each case on its merits.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is it not the duty of the British Waterways Board to advise the Government on the future of the waterways system and, if that is the case, why have the Government, without consulting the board, appointed a separate canal adviser, a man who on several occasions has said that he disapproves of the Government's policy? Will the Government take his advice and that of the board and scrap the proposals, which have no support anywhere in the country?

Mr. Griffiths: The fact that the adviser invited by my right hon. Friend to assist us in this matter has expressed different views from those in any Government publication demonstrates the broad-minded attitude taken by my right hon. Friend and his willingness to listen to advice—which is something the hon. Gentleman rarely displays.

Leaden hall and Bishopsgate (Roman Basilica)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the developers of the Leaden hall and Bishopsgate areas of London, with a view to tailoring future development to the national need to preserve the Roman Basilica, the biggest north of the Alps.

Mr. Eyre: It would be for the Corporation of the City of London in the first instance to consider any proposals for the redevelopment of these areas. I expect that they would consult my Department as regards archæological implications.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the City repeat its performance over Bay nards Castle?

Mr. Eyre: No. The City of London is the planning authority for the Leadenhall market but currently there are no plans for development.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that events in recent months and weeks illustrate the need to make all historic and archæological sites the subject of preservation orders?

Mr. Eyre: The scheduling of all sites of former buildings of archæological interest is not practicable, but by agreement with any future developer it is the intention to have excavations carried out to reveal exactly what is to be preserved and what are the problems involved.

Archæological Sites

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the possibility of erecting buildings on stilts above valuable achæological sites; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eyre: I agree that the erection of buildings on stilts is one possible way of preserving valuable archæological remains underneath. Each case needs to be considered individually.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a case for using the Field Monuments Bill, which is now going through the House, as a vehicle for a new Clause on this topic?

Mr. Eyre: Detailed consideration will be given to that Bill in due course, but I emphasise that the erection of buildings on stilts is not the only way of preserving archæological remains. They can be raised to a higher level and incorporated in any new building. As an example I would draw attention to the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall in which there is a Tudor wine cellar which has been preserved and can be visited.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Since we have so few old buildings left in this country, and even fewer archæological remains, would my hon. Friend give serious consideration to strengthening legislation to protect such works? Furthermore, even at this late juncture, will he look at the possibility of Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend's suggestion can be considered, but I assure him that his concern is shared and that every care will be taken for the proper examination of archæological remains which could be of importance.

House Prices

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increased amount on the average price of new private houses in the Northern Region since June, 1970, to the latest available date.

Mr. Eyre: The average price of new private houses in the three northern regions of England mortgaged with building societies is estimated to have been £4,669 in 1971, compared with £4,257 in 1970, an increase of 10 per cent.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in parts of the North East the increase is higher than 40 per cent.? Is he aware, further, that this increase demonstrates even more the appalling escalation in house prices since the present Government took office, and that it is hypocritical to talk of a property-owning society if young married couples find it quite impossible to think of buying houses? In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment, may I plead with him to tell his colleagues in his Department that we must have a change in this disastrous piece of Government policy?

Mr. Eyre: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a rise of 21 per cent. in the price of private sector houses in the years 1967–70. Recently there has been a great upsurge in the demand for home ownership. Increases in incomes have enlarged the base for mortgage credit so that there are more willing and able purchasers today than before.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is not it possible that the increase in the price of a house is partly accounted for by the increase in the price of land? With that in mind, does my hon. Friend recall his answer to a Question just now when he said that insufficient information was available in his Department to give any sensible reply? I find this very worrying. Will my hon. Friend ensure that proper statistics are obtained?

Mr. Eyre: The reason why there could not be a detailed reply to the earlier Question was that it was framed with inaccurate definition. To reply to my hon. Friend's question, the urgency of bringing as much land as possible on to the market is fully appreciated, and strong efforts will be made in this respect. However an increase in the supply of private houses is the best answer to rising house prices.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not it a fallacy that house prices are soaring because developers are starved of land by local authorities? Is not it a fact that in the south-eastern counties alone there are building permissions for 150,000 houses which have not been taken up by builders? Are not speculators holding on to land with a view to securing a profit on selling shortly afterwards?

Mr. Eyre: It must be remembered that there are good reasons for developers having a "bank" of land to provide for future development. That is essential for the planned development of houses coming into the market. I stress that in the period from November, 1971, to February, 1972, starts in the private sector were 35 per cent. up on the same period a year earlier. The trend is moving in the right direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Accommodation

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what additional accommodation is currently being constructed for hon. Members; how many additional separate rooms will be provided; how soon he expects the work to be completed; and what is the estimated total cost.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): Additional accommodation for Members is now being constructed over the Tea Room. This will consist of 43 double rooms and six rooms with four desks each, so providing accommodation for over 100 Members. The work will be completed during the next Christmas Recess, and the estimated cost is £240,000.
In addition, alterations are being made to 3 Dean's Yard which will provide

accommodation for an additional 40 Members.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for that information. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far demand exceeds supply? Will he accept an assurance from me that even the new accommodation which has been provided over the last few years leaves many hon. Members in only a slightly better position than that of a battery hen? Will he undertake, therefore, to seek further possibilities in this building rather than over the road to provide decent and separate accommodation for the ordinary back bencher?

Mr. Carr: In my early years in this House I suffered the conditions of a free-range hen. I also remember the battery hen conditions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Undoubtedly there is an excess of demand over supply. I cannot quantify it after only 10 days in my present position. But the ultimate answer is the new parliamentary building which I am sure the House hopes will be completed by 1978.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I have the same experience as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) since I am a neighbour of his in a room on the Upper North Corridor, where the sound insulation between rooms might not be there at all for all the use it is? Will my right hon. Friend give attention to seeing that when the new rooms are constructed the sound insulation is at least better than that on the Upper North Corridor?

Mr. Carr: I will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, I hope that both hon. Members enjoy their listening.

Mr. C. Pannell: The Lord President referred to the new parliamentary building across the road as "the ultimate solution". Meanwhile, will he look at the possibility of clearing out all the functionaries from the Committee Offices upstairs? What hon. Members want is accommodation near the Chamber. Officials should take second place. I know the vested interests involved. But will the right hon. Gentleman pursue the path of obstinacy that he followed with regard to industrial relations and understand that parliamentary relationships will be very much better if Members


get their proper prior place in this building?

Mr. Carr: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure the House will realise that the officials who serve us also have their very genuine needs if they are to serve us as we wish them to. But I will make sure that the Services Committee gives this matter careful consideration.

Car Parking

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Lord President of the Council, following his correspondence with the Chairman of the House of Commons Motor Club, whether he will now make a statement concerning parking accommodation for Members' cars within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster from the summer of 1972 to the summer of 1973, while the underground car park is being built, and while 25 per cent. only of Members' cars will be provided for within the precincts, and 75 per cent. at Broad Sanctuary or Horse Guards, or both.

Mr. R. Carr: I am very much aware of the importance of ensuring that the House has adequate car parking facilities throughout the construction of the proposed underground car park The Services Committee has this problem under detailed consideration at the present time and, I hope, will be reporting to the House shortly.

Sir G. Nabarro: Did my right hon. Friend witness the indescribable confusion in New Palace Yard yesterday evening when motor cars serving up to 570 Members voting in Divisions, including my own, were parked there? As there were 60 Ministerial cars with chauffeurs in attendance all standing unused in Speaker's Court until 4 o'clock in the morning, would not it have been more sensible to place those facilities at the disposal of Members coming to and fro and obeying the calls of their Whips, which they will not be able to do if their cars are parked as far away as Horse Guards Parade or Broad Sanctuary?

Mr. Carr: The circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention underline the urgent need for the underground car park which we hope will soon be started. According to my information, the maximum capacity of Speaker's Court is for 36 cars. Nevertheless it is a serious

problem. The Services Committee is aware of it. We have studied carefully the information that my hon. Friend gave the Committee. I hope we shall be reporting on it shortly.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As a temporary measure, will the right hon. Gentleman write to all members of the House of Commons Motor Club and to those hon. Members who park their cars in New Palace Yard, giving them elementary instructions on how to park a car? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for taxis to get to the Members' Entrance in New Palace Yard?

Mr. Carr: I am not sure that a letter from me to all hon. Members on this subject would be productive. But I will see whether anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Building Land (South Bedfordshire)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of how many acres of land in South Bedfordshire, excluding the County Borough of Luton, planning permission has been given for building since April, 1968; on how many such acres building has commenced; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Speed: This information is not sent to the Department. But my right hon. Friend is at present considering whether it would be desirable and practicable to seek further information on such subjects from local authorities.

Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend have early discussions with the planning authorities in South Bedfordshire on this matter in view of the housing situation?

Mr. Speed: My right hon. Friend is very much concerned about the avail ability and price of building land. As I indicated in the original answer, we are considering what further action it would be right to take with the co-operation of the authorities as a matter of urgency.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Prentice: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present position in the railway dispute.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Immediately after reporting to the House on 17th April, I met the General Council of the TUC and asked it whether it had any proposals which could provide a settlement of the dispute which, in view of the British Railways Board's expressed position, would not involve any further increase in the wage and salary bill of the board beyond the award made by Mr. Jarratt. I also asked the council to urge the three unions to ballot their members on the award and to suspend industrial action while a ballot took place. In reply, I was told that a meeting of the TUC's Finance and General Purposes Committee would be arranged on the following afternoon to consider my requests.
Early yesterday morning, with this meeting still in prospect, I thought it right to meet representatives of the three railway unions myself and ask them urgently to consider suspending the work-to-rule while their members were given an opportunity of expressing their views on the acceptability of the award in a ballot conducted by the unions themselves. They undertook to put my suggestion to their executives.
Last night the Chairman and the General Secretary of the TUC gave me some account of the discussions the Finance and General Purposes Committee had held with the railway unions. They told me that my request for a suspension of the work-to-rule and for a ballot were being put to the executives of the three unions. They also told me that the executives were then meeting in order to find a possible basis for further discussions with the British Railways Board on the award. In their view, the unions would not be able to make any proposal that night, despite my expressed willingness to invite representatives of the board to come to my Department immediately. Nor were they able to tell me whether the unions were prepared to suspend industrial action while any discussions took place or while they balloted their members on the award.
I told the representatives of the TUC that I still very much hoped that the unions would be able to agree a basis acceptable to the British Railways Board on which any necessary discussions on

Mr. Jarratt's award could take place. I also expressed the hope that the public could be assured that the unions would suspend industrial action so that passenger and freight services could run normally while these discussions took place. I had, however, to add that, if these hopes were not realised, the Government would feel bound to apply to the Industrial Court at mid-day today for an order seeking the discontinuance of industrial action.
This I have now done.

Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State has made a very grave statement to the House, and the measure which he has just announced will make it more difficult for a constructive dialogue to take place between the unions and the Government on a whole range of issues on which this dialogue is overdue. It may well lead—though I hope it will not—to a permanent worsening of industrial relations in this country.
May I put to the Minister four questions on the immediate situation? First, he has said that the TUC leaders told him last night that they were willing to make an immediate approach to the British Railways Board. Will he confirm that it was their view that they could suggest a formula for a quick settlement and that they were willing to try to achieve it? If so, does it not follow that his action may have destroyed the opportunity of that settlement being reached, because he has deliberately chosen an alternative which will sharpen the confrontation and provide less chance of a settlement?
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman denies that, will he explain to the House exactly what positive steps he proposes to take during the cooling-off period, if he gets it, to try to bring this dispute to an early settlement?
Thirdly, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the practical difficulties of definition and enforcement of a cooling-off period in a dispute where there is no strike and the men are proceeding in accordance with their normal contracts?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House and, indeed, the Chair are in considerable difficulty because the report of the Select Committee on Procedure with regard to matters sub judice was adopted


by the House. We must go very carefully. [Interruption.] Order. The two questions which the right hon. Gentleman has already asked are perfectly in order, but I think that he and other hon. Members must be careful not to ask anything which might be the subject of argument before the tribunal. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members making animal noises at me. I have to try to interpret the rules of order. The House accepted the decision with regard to matters sub judice. The whole House is in a difficult position today as a result of the decision taken by the Government. This matter is technically sub judice. I want to allow the widest possible discussion. I am just issuing a preliminary warning.

Mr. Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want in any way to trespass into the area which the court will be considering later today. I am attempting to get from the Secretary of State an explanation for his taking this major political step. I will proceed to ask him my third question without going into too much detail. Has he carefully considered that he was dealing not with a strike situation but with a situation in which the definition of industrial action and the enforcement of any court order would provide great complexities, particularly concerning the difference between normal and abnormal observation of the rule book and how this can be related to each railway man? Even if there were something to be said for this Act, which we do not concede, this is a particularly bad example of how to use the section.
Finally, what on earth happened to the proposals for a compulsory ballot which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be threatening yesterday? Why were they dropped? Were they dropped because he was advised by Mr. Feather and others that the likely result of such a ballot would be that the railway men would uphold their executives? If that is his assessment of the mood of the railway men, does it not make it all the more extraordinary that, instead of allowing the TUC to follow through the constructive approach that it made to him, he has adopted this heavy-handed and divisive procedure?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that this action made it difficult for a constructive dia-

logue to continue. I consider the action of the railway men in subjecting the public to the inconvenience that they have makes it difficult for the management of the British Railways Board to take a constructive view in the face of such considerable pressure.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the TUC had put forward a formula for discussion with the board. My difficulty last night was that the TUC was unable to give me any idea of the likely proposal that the union executives might put to the Railways Board. I was merely given an assurance that such proposals would be put forward. In return, I suggested that if the management and board of British Railways were to be expected to negotiate freely and not under duress and the public were to be relieved of the pressures put upon them, it would be right for the work-to-rule to be not abandoned but suspended while the talks which I understood the unions were to propose were carried out. I therefore think that in default of that assurance it is not unreasonable that the Government should discharge their responsibilities to the country and ensure as best they can the use of the court for the purpose of trying to stop negotiations under duress, which the unions appear to be seeking.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had any positive proposals to put forward. The answer is that I have. The unions concerned should now come forward with the proposals which I have been led to understand they have and discuss them with the board. The unions have, in the course of the negotiations under the chairmanship of Mr. Jarratt, had put to them by the board an improvement, from the unions' point of view on the board's original proposals. That improvement was not only rejected out of hand by all three unions, but in the process of that rejection they made it so clear that they were not able even to consider talking at that time about the proposals that Mr. Jarratt came to the conclusion that the unions were not negotiating and he, therefore, had to make an award. That award was also rejected.
On the question of definition and enforcement, I hope that in my application to the court I have done what I can to make it plain why the Government are seeking this order. Apart from that, I think that it is for the court to decide,


if I may respectfully say so, on the definition and on the enforcement.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked why we had dropped our proposals for a compulsory ballot. First, neither I nor any member of the Government had put forward a suggestion for a compulsory ballot. I urged on the unions that they should ballot their own members and that while they were doing so they should of their own accord bring their industrial action to an end. I told the unions at the same time, because I thought that it was only right to warn them, that the Government could not long postpone action to deal with the emergency, and I have, therefore, made my statement today.
I should add that I hope that we have not ruled out the question of a ballot in the future. There has been a change since I first made that proposal to the unions. The TUC has talked to the three unions concerned, and I understand that as a result of those talks there is now a possibility of the unions having discussions with the board. That possibility was opened to me only yesterday afternoon by the TUC, and it is for that reason that I have now been able to say to the court that there is a possibility of this cooling-off period leading to discussions without duress on one side or the other, which might lead to a settlement.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will have the sympathy of all the people in this country—pensioners, people on fixed incomes and everyone concerned about rising costs—for his action? Can he give any indication when the court is likely to make known its findings?

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. When the court is liable to make its judgment known must be a matter entirely for the court.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is the Minister aware that he himself has not helped matters during the last three days by his arrogant, Hitler-like attitude towards the three unions? It is all very well for the Prime Minister to sit there shrugging his shoulders, with that arrogant grin of his. I know what has happened. Is the Minister also aware that what the unions are doing is working to rule? Furthermore,

does he appreciate that there are a number of widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers would probably have been alive today if they had all worked to rule? Is the right hon. Gentle man going to push this ahead a little so that there are more widows and orphans?

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have taken an aggressive attitude. I have tried to be patient and give the unions as much time to consider the matter as was consistent with my duty to protect the public.
The board's first offer was rejected on Wednesday night. I saw the unions and asked them whether they would reconsider the matter. I asked them whether they would use the proper processes which are the subject of an agreement between the board and the unions, and go to arbitration. When, for one reason or another, arbitration was considered by the unions to be unsatisfactory, I asked them whether they would consider a variant of arbitration which the board had devised to meet the unions' objections to the agreed process. Both they and the board agreed to do this. They discussed the matter fully all through Sunday under the chairmanship of Mr. Jarratt. In the end, Mr. Jarratt came to the conclusion that, although the board had made a movement, the unions had made no movement at all and there was no real negotiation, and the only thing left to do was to make an award, which he did. The unions rejected the board's proposal. They refused to discuss it further, and they rejected the award.
I then asked the unions whether they would consider balloting their members, and they rejected that, too. There was then, fortunately, owing to the good offices of the TUC, a possibility of a new approach which would not simply be a repeat of the demand for the original claim. That approach has not been forthcoming, and there has not been any sign of a willingness to suspend the work-to-rule and ban on overtime.
The Government thought it intolerable that the negotiations or any further talks which could have taken place earlier could now take place only against a background of pressure against the board and management of British Railways and


the public. Because of the work-to-rule, the Government thought it only right to ask the court whether, in those circumstances, it would be willing to issue an order under the Act.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that the most helpful, sympathetic and conciliatory attitude that could be adopted by all those who want this dispute to be solved would be to show a true and proper respect for the law and the courts of the land, and that the example should be set in this House?

Mr. Macmillan: It is fair of my hon. Friend to remind the House that, whether one approves or disapproves of laws, they are the laws of the land.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the discussions which his predecessor had on this very issue? Does he recall that during those discussions the point was made that if the conditions of employment or the contract of employment under which men were employed on railways included insistence on those men working to the rule book, and if the court could make an order only for the men to return to work within the terms of their conditions of employment or contract of labour, the court would have to order them back to work in accordance with the rule book? That would apply to all the railway workshops.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is asking the court to do the impossible by asking it to order railway men back to work within the terms of the rule book which is now in dispute? Is that not the situation, and does it not prove correct the predictions made by the TUC that the Industrial Court could not solve disputes in this situation?

Mr. Macmillan: I think it right to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am putting an application to the court not to solve the dispute but merely to deal with the industrial action. Whether the court judges that that falls within its capability is a matter for the court, not for me.

Mr. Adam Butler: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear on every possible occasion that a cooling-off period is not being imposed by a diktat of Government, but is subject to the decision of a court of law set up by the democratic votes of the Houses of Parliament?

[Interruption.] Is he aware that all fair-minded people will see a cooling-off period, if it is granted, as being fair and reasonable in all the circumstances?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is right. This is a point of difference between this Government's legislation and that proposed by the previous Administration; but the decision whether or not to impose a cooling-off period under our system rests with the court and not with the Government.

Mr. Bradley: When does the Minister intend to act as a genuine conciliator instead of allowing himself to be used by the Conservative Party as a mouthpiece—[Interruption.]—to challenge the trade union movement? Does he agree that the difference between both sides in this dispute is very narrow indeed? Why did he distrust the assurances given by Mr. Victor Feather yesterday about the talks with the TUC, which I attended, when there was a perceptible movement on the part of the railway unions towards a position where talks could have been resumed today with the British Railways Board, with possible fruitful consequences? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the ultimatum—I forbear to use the word "blackmail"—which he issued last night completely prejudiced that prospect?

Mr. Macmillan: I assure the House that there was no question of my not trusting Mr. Feather. Unfortunately, however, he was unable to give me the slightest idea of the proposals which he had discussed with the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the TUC; the slightest idea whether or not those proposals involved extra spending by the board, over and above the wage deal of the Jarratt award; and any idea whether the unions would find the proposals which had been discussed acceptable to them.
He was, therefore, asking us for more time for further pressure to be put on the country by the industrial action which is being taken—[Interruption.]—while the unions were making up their mind. Since this had been the history of these negotiations and since the best proposals, those most likely to be fruitful, had already been rejected by the unions—they had arisen during the Jarratt negotiations—it was difficult to see any reason


why they had been rejected then but had again been suggested later on if it was not for the fact that the unions wished to delay further while the effects of their industrial action accumulated.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what it is he is asking the court to order?

Mr. Macmillan: I am advised that I should not, while the court is sitting, go into any details. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Bearing in mind the ruling you gave earlier, Mr. Speaker, and bearing also in mind the sub judicerule generally, may I seek your guidance in this matter? If we are told by the Minister that an application has been made to the court, are we not entitled to know what that application is for? It is understood that any Minister is unable to go into the merits behind a particular remedy which he is seeking, or to express his opinion whether or not the court will grant it, but it is surely not only in order but to be expected that a Minister should, having applied to the court, tell us for what he has applied.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a better rule to allow the Minister to complete his answer.

Mr. Macmillan: As I said, I am not able to go into the details of the application as these contain the reasons and arguments for going to the court. The application has been made under Section 138 of the Industrial Relations Act. It is for a cooling-off period of 21 days.

Mr. Prentice: On a point of order. Would you at least confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be out of order if the Minister had chosen to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)?

Mr. Speaker: I can only rule on matters of order. If I hear anything that is out of order I shall rule accordingly. Mr. Rost.

Mr. Rost: Is it not——

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order. Would you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the application to which the Minister

referred has been made to the court not on his behalf but on behalf of this Chamber, so that Parliament, on whose behalf it has been made, is entitled to know its contents?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for the Chair. Mr. Rost.

Mr. Rost: Is it not intolerable——

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr, Speaker. The Secretary of State rightly says that the application has been made under Section 138 of the Act. May I remind your, Mr. Speaker, that that provision starts:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State…that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lock-out, has begun or is likely to begin.
In those circumstances, is not the House entitled to know precisely what the application is about? Is it, in fact, about irregular industrial action? If so, may we be told exactly what type of irregular industrial action it is? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State must explain to the House whether a work-to-rule—working to the rules of the railway company—or a ban on overtime is an irregular industrial action? Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to make an application under that Section of the Act?

Mr. Speaker: That is very far wide of a point of order. Indeed, it goes into the whole of the merits of the matter which is essentially one for the court to decide. That is exactly what is sub judice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anticipatory points of order of this sort do not help. I have not yet ruled any hon. Member or any question out of order. Mr. Rost.

Mr. Rost: Is it not intolerable——

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your advice as to the position that would arise if we, as a House, wished to disapprove of the Minister's action? How could we do that in view of what you have said?

Mr. Speaker: There are various ways whereby the House can challenge the acts of the Executive. However, what hon. Members cannot do when a matter is before a court of law is to discuss it


here until the court has come to a decision.
I am endeavouring to carry out the Resolution which the House passed on 23rd July, 1963. I am bound by it. I have to administer the rules of the House as best I can, and I repeat that I have not yet ruled any question out of order.

Mr. Harold Walker: Further to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you to accept that the House is entitled to hear from the Minister precisely about what he is asking the court to make a decision? Is the Minister asking the court to decide that the railway men must work in breach of rules——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that I have not yet disallowed any question to the Minister.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to hear any more points of order on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I ask the House to bear with me. I have not yet ruled any question out of order. The Chair has no power to make a Minister answer. That is not a matter for the Chair. If the House will kindly get on with the questioning and not put so many of these anticipatory points of order, we shall do better. Mr. Rost.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the point of order deals with the same matter, I will not take it. I have ruled on the matter. Mr. Rost.

Mr. Rost: Is it not intolerable that those who are causing the inconvenience to the public and holding the nation to ransom are actually being paid for it by the taxpayer?

Mr. Macmillan: I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that at present the taxpayer is paying anyone, except through social security Acts and in other ways.

Mr. Callaghan: May I, Mr. Speaker, repeat a question from the Liberal Benches, because if it is not out of order we would feel that it would be rather an insult to the House if the Minister

does not give us an answer? I understand from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that the question was not out of order. May I, therefore, put it again with your permission? What is it that the Minister has made application to the court to do, and would he please publish his application in HANSARD so that we may all read it? That is a perfectly simple question. As a House, we should like to have an answer. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. To stop any more preliminary points of order, that question, in my view, is in order.

Mr. Macmillan: If I may come to a point of fact which was raised by an hon. Member opposite, this application—[Interruption.] it was a question that I was asked—was made by the Secretary of State for Employment and not on behalf of the House. It is not made by the Government.
On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I made this application under Section 138 of the Industrial Relations Act. It was for a cooling-off period of 21 days. The reasons were set out in a document which I have set before the court. That document is, I understand, now the property of the court, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me without the court's permission, to publish it in HANSARD.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Minister has given an opinion that, in his view, it would not be appropriate for him to publish the document as it is the property of the court. We are treading very new ground in this matter, and one of the reasons for the disquiet today, certainly on this side of the House, is the feeling that very important semi-political issues may be removed from the control of the House.
I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider, as this matter is new to you as well as to us, whether it would be improper for the Minister to refrain from setting out in detail in HANSARD what is his application? Clearly, you would not be able to give such a ruling today, Mr. Speaker, but it would be very helpful if tomorrow we could have your considered view on


this matter. Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, with no disrespect, that if it really became the case that the Government could make secret applications to the court that can be published only in due course when the court decides, I believe that the Industrial Relations Act would be brought into even greater disrepute than it is today.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. In my view, the Minister is in order in stating the nature of the application. When it comes to the arguments to be put forward in support of it, that seems to me to be part of the judicial proceeding, and I would not think that the House would be in order in inquiring into them until we have heard the finding of the court. The nature of the application is in order, but not the arguments put forward on the merits in support of it; those are matters for debate at the appropriate time.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I might consider the matter and, perhaps, rule tomorrow. I think certainly that that is a helpful suggestion. But I must not leave the House in any false hopes of one sort or another. My present feeling is that it is absolutely in order for the nature of the application to be stated to the House, but the arguments about its merits are sub judice.

Mr. Callaghan: I would hope that perhaps we could leave this particular point where it is for today, perhaps, in order to give you, Mr. Speaker, a chance not to commit yourself further, because you have expressed a preliminary view. Speaking as a non-lawyer—and most of us in the House are non-lawyers; some would say "Thank goodness"—we shall find it extremely difficult to understand why it is not possible to publish the details of an application which the Government have made to the court. I beg the court and you, Mr. Speaker, and the Government, if they really want this thing to proceed and to get a settlement, to take us into their confidence and tell us as much as they can about it. If indeed they cannot, because they have now put themselves in baulk so that they cannot tell us the reason, they are making the situation a darned sight more difficult than it need have been.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are considering the reference made to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), on which you agreed to act, will you consider the chronology of what has taken place today? You admitted a Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker, which could have been answered at 3.30 p.m.; but I understand that the court will not convene until 4 p.m., so the matter can hardly be sub judice before the court has started its process.
Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this may not be the last occasion on which we shall run into difficulty, would it not be better for the Government's timing in future that they do not appear to shut out the House of Commons from this consideration? The Secretary of State has said that his Department made this application, and then used words to say that it was no business of the House of Commons. We do not accept that dictum at all. This matter concerns disorder up and down the country. It needs a long cool look and should not be left in the inept hands of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: I am all for a long cool look. I think that the Select Committee on Procedure did take a long cool look and dealt with the right hon. Member's point by saying,
As, for example, by notice of Motion for an injunction.

Mr. Macmillan: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I can help, Mr. Speaker. I should point out to the House that I did not in any way suggest that it was not a matter for the House of Commons. I merely said that I was not making an application to the court on behalf of the House of Commons. I should point out that this is a public court and that the proceedings are publicly held as part of the High Court. This application will, therefore, be available. We have certainly no wish to keep it secret in any way. It is just that I understood that it would not be proper, as this is an application which is now before the court, for me to go into any further detail than I have already done.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (WIDGERY TRIBUNAL REPORT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has formally presented to Parliament the report of the Lord Chief Justice into the events of Sunday, 30th January, 1972, at Londonderry. Copies of the report are now available in the Vote Office.
The Government accept Lord Widgery's findings. All shades of opinion sincerely concerned with the truth must feel indebted to him for his objective and painstaking analysis of events.
The Lord Chief Justice finds that: 
There would have been no deaths in Londonderry if those who organised the march had not thereby created a highly dangerous situation in which a clash between demonstrators and the security forces was almost inevitable.
The decision to contain the march was fully justified by events and was successfully carried out.
If the Army had persisted in its "low key" attitude and had not launched a large scale operation to arrest hooligans, the day might have passed off without serious incident. The dangers of an arrest operation carried out in the prevalent circumstances might have been underestimated by the Commander 8 Brigade: but he sought to minimise the risks by withholding the order to launch the arrest operation until, as he believed, the rioters and marchers were adequately separated. As Lord Widgery observes, he took his decision in good faith on the information available. Furthermore, Lord Widgery describes the dangerous violence to which the troops were exposed. He observes that the future threat to law and order posed by the hard core of hooligans in Londonderry made the arrest of some of them a legitimate security objective.
The intention of the senior Army officers to use the Parachute Battalion as

an arrest force and not for other offensive purposes was sincere. Allegations to the contrary are dismissed as unsupported by any shred of evidence.
Proper orders were given for the arrest operation. The Commanding Officer of the Parachute Battalion did not exceed his orders.
There is no reason to suppose that the soldiers engaged in the arrest operation would have opened fire if they had not been fired upon first.
Soldiers who identified armed gunmen fired upon them in accordance with the standing orders in the Yellow Card. Each soldier had to exercise his own judgment, which reflected differences of individual character and temperament. At one end of the scale some soldiers showed a high degree of responsibility; at the other, notably in Glenfada Park, firing bordered on the reckless. But I should point out that the soldiers' own lives were at risk—as indeed the world must recognise that they have been, and still are, during a great part of their time in Northern Ireland.
Lord Widgery goes on to say that further restrictions on opening fire would inhibit the soldier from taking proper steps for his own safety and that of his comrades and unduly hamper the engagement of gunmen.
None of the dead and wounded is proved to have been shot whilst handling a firearm or bomb. Some are wholly acquitted from complicity in such action; but there is a strong suspicion that some others had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon and that yet others had been closely supporting them.
Lord Widgery finally concludes that the individual soldier ought not to have to bear the burden of deciding whether to open fire in confusion such as prevailed on 30th January. Unfortunately, he adds, in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland this burden of decision is often inescapable.
The Government deeply regret that there were any casualties, whatever the individual circumstances.
Situations such as that which occurred in Londondery can only be avoided by ending the law-breaking and violence which are responsible for the continuing


loss of life among the security forces and the public in Londonderry and throughout the Province, and by a return to legality, reconciliation and reason. I hope I may have the support of the House in a renewed appeal for a combined effort to prevent any repetition of circumstances such as led to this tragedy.

Mr. Callaghan: The Prime Minister was good enough to allow me to see the report a little earlier——

Mr. Orme: Why could we not all see it?

Mr. Callaghan: —and I am obliged to him for so doing. No doubt everyone will reach his own conclusions about the report. At first sight, the two conclusions that stand out are, first, that the Army was fired on first and that it would not have fired if it had not been fired on, and, second, that it was probably an error of judgment to change what Lord Widgery describes as the "low key" attitude of the Army to this march and to endeavour to make large-scale arrests. I am confirmed in that view by the fact that since this tragic march other marches, equally illegal, have taken place in which the Army has not intervened and when there has been no loss of life.
These tragic events belong in the past. They took place when there was divided responsibility for security and when it is fair to say that very heavy pressure was being brought to bear upon the Army commanders to step up their attitude. I do not suppose any of us will ever know whether they were acting on their own judgment or whether they yielded to the judgment of others. 
The description of Lord Widgery demonstrates the bankruptcy of the old policy and the need for a new one, which has now superseded the old one. The Prime Minister asks for the combined support of the House. He has it. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the support of the House in the new efforts which are being made. Despite the setbacks, we trust that they will be successful.
I will say one concluding thing this afternoon about this march. In circumstances like this the lesson for the future is that, whatever the provocation, if the consequences of the Army's action are to be the killing of 13 people who may or

may not have been innocent bystanders or onlookers or, at the very most, non-violent participants in the march, because none of them is proved to have been shot whilst handling a firearm or a bomb, the predominant approach of the Army must be to safeguard the lives of those who are onlookers whilst protecting themselves and not engaging in operations that might endanger innocent lives in this way.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the future of Northern Ireland. I am also grateful to him for the support which he is always giving to this policy.
I agree with him about his first impression of the report. Lord Widgery says this in paragraph 54:
To those who seek to apportion responsibility for the events of 30 January the question 'Who fired first?' is vital. I am entirely satisfied that the first firing in the courtyards was directed at the soldiers.
On the second point, this is always, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises a most difficult question to decide and is a matter of judgment. The Lord Chief Justice has questioned the judgment which was exercised at the time. At the same time, he says in paragraph 32 of the report that he believes that the arrests or the attempted arrests of the hooligans were "a legitimate security objective" because they were operating on such a scale.
What the Army always has to consider is whether, in attempting to deal with this problem of enforcing law and order, it is liable to be shot at by gunmen so that firing then ensues in which innocent bystanders may be killed or wounded. This is the most difficult problem which the Army has to face.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every peace-loving person in Ulster will endorse his appeal about the return to reason and reconciliation? Is he aware also that everyone will be pleased that Lord Widgery has so far vindicated Her Majesty's Forces and exploded some of the myths surrounding the so-called "Bloody Sunday"?
Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about pressures put upon the military commanders? Is there anything


in Lord Widgery's comments which suggests that this was, in fact, the case and that what happend was the result of divided responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I have read the report carefully many times, but I cannot recall that there is anything in it which says that any political pressure was exercised upon the General Officer Commanding, upon the Commander Land Forces, or upon the Commander 8 Brigade to take particular action of this kind. It was known to Ministers that there was to be an action to contain the march—not to prevent the march entirely, but to contain it within an area in which it would be peaceable so that it would not go into the centre of the city and, therefore, risk a sectarian clash, which would have been very much more dangerous.
As regards the question of divided responsibility, this operation was under the control of the General Officer Commanding; and the Lord Chief Justice discusses in his report the operation orders, gives details of them and states that the operation orders were adhered to by the commanders concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: Lord Widgery also says that the general decision was taken after reference to a higher authority.

The Prime Minister: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right. That is what I meant by saying that the plan was prepared by the Brigade Commander and went to the Commander Land Forces. It also went to the General Officer Commanding, who discussed it with the Chief Constable; and it was known to Ministers. That is what I meant by saying that it was known to higher authority.

Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Press have had copies of this report for a number of hours and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has also had a copy? Why could not all hon. Members have been provided with copies so that we could have read the report with care?
Is the Prime Minister aware that, judging from my cursory look at the report and from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, Lord Widgery has given a much more balanced report of the situation

than his noble Friend did in regard to the operations of the British Army?
Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us would support what my right hon. Friend said about paragraph 3, that the low key approach by the Army is absolutely vital and this approach is what many of us wish to see in the future, with the Army withdrawn from the sensitive areas and operating a much more balanced approach.
In the difficult days since direct rule was begun many of us have openly and publicly supported those elected representatives in the Catholic community who have opposed the IRA and are looking for an end to violence. We recognise that what happened yesterday and the funeral in Belfast makes this much more difficult but we want to achieve it, and in these circumstances will the Prime Minister recognise that the low key approach is the answer to the problem?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Member's first point, certain customary facilities are provided to the Press if a Government publication is issued by Governments of any party, and this custom has been observed on this occasion. As for the reports which I personally saw this morning in the Press, the Press did not have the report in time for these stories to be based on their own copies. But I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make inquiries as to how such reports could have come to be published. They were certainly not authorised in any way.
On the low key approach I agree with the hon. Member. The Lord Chief Justice points out that it was the element of attack on the Army by hooligans which led it to make the arrests. It is important that the Lord Chief Justice dismisses as not having a shred of evidence to support it any accusation which was made at the time of the incident or later before him that the Parachute Regiment was chosen not to make the arrests but to go in for some aggressive attack. He says there is no justification for that claim at all.
I recognise the support that is given in very difficult circumstances to the Government's policy in Northern Ireland, and we appreciate it and are grateful for it. The low key approach could not be extended to the stage where it allows the


IRA or the Provisionals to establish control over an area so that it is no longer policed by either the RUC or the Army, but is controlled only by gunmen. That is the difference between the two approaches, and it is one which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is endeavouring to pursue.

Mr. Ramsden: Many of us are very much concerned about the good name of the Army during the events of that afternoon. Would the Prime Minister not agree that, by comparison with the hostile propaganda which arose out of these events and the very wild allegations that were made, the effect of the findings, the gist of which he has given us, has been virtually completely to exonerate the conduct of the officers and men of 1 Parachute? This will be of the greatest satisfaction particularly to those who have had the privilege of meeting these men and seeing their constructive attitude to an extremely difficult task in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: In the body of his report the Lord Chief Justice gives his very clear impressions of the 1 Battalion Parachute Regiment and of the way in which they gave their evidence and of the extent to which he was impressed by it. When the House reads that paragraph it will agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has said. As the House will see, he examines in very great detail each occasion on which shots were fired. He examined the soldiers who fired them and he heard the evidence of the newsmen and saw the television films as well as the photographs. He also goes into great detail about those who were the casualties. Having read the whole of it I, like the Lord Chief Justice himself, was immediately impressed by the conduct of the forces.

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting that the Army was faced with an illegal march and with extreme provocation, does the Prime Minister not believe that the most disquieting single finding of the report is that 13 people died, none of whom was proved to have been in possession of weapons at the time, and some of whom are completely acquitted of complicity? That being so, may I press him on the low key point? Since the Lord Chief Justice

makes quite plain the dangers inherent in a low key containment escalating into an arrest operation, is the Prime Minister satisfied that there are sufficiently clear instructions as to when the low key containment shall be changed into an arrest operation? Is he satisfied that the directives are sufficiently clear?

The Prime Minister: The directives are laid down on each occasion in the operation order, and I am satisfied, certainly on this occasion, as the Lord Chief Justice says, that the operation orders were very clear and that they were adhered to.
The tragedy was, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that 13 people lost their lives and many others were wounded. As the Lord Chief Justice points out, however, the Army was undoubtedly fired upon, and fired upon first, and it was in the action which individual soldiers took against those who were firing upon them that other people, some of whom were undoubtedly innocent, were killed or wounded. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the paragraphs about the forensic evidence he will see why the Lord Chief Justice concludes that there was certainly a strong suspicion in a number of cases that the deceased and wounded had either been using weapons that afternoon or had been in close proximity to those who were and had been supporting them.

Mr. McManus: The Prime Minister has mentioned a few pious hopes for the future, but for the minority in Northern Ireland this report will certainly not add anything to the prospects for peace and reconciliation in the future. The only thing it will succeed in doing is finally to bankrupt any shred of confidence the minority ever had in tribunals or judicial inquiries set up by this House or this Government. In their eyes it is plainly a spurious and desperate attempt to whitewash the activities of the Army on that Sunday. [Interruption.] No amount of reports or verbiage will eliminate or explain away "Bloody Sunday".

Hon. Members: Have you read the report?

Mr. McManus: It was the greatest single outrage that has been perpetrated in our country for a long time. Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to allow


the impression to go abroad that the Government take the view that if there had been no march there would have been no violence, because by so doing he is saying that the punishment for organising the illegal march on that day was death for 13 people? If the Prime Minister has a grain of sense in his head or if there is a grain of sense in the Government, they will now lift this ridiculous ban on marches and grant an amnesty to all who have been punished. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I completely reject what the hon. Member has said. Those who are prepared to read the Lord Chief Justice's report with an open mind and consider it impartially will realise that he has gone into these matters—which were very difficult and complex, and which occurred in a state of considerable confusion, as has been quite obvious from the beginning—as deeply as it is possible for any man to do. He has weighed up the evidence and set out very frankly his conclusions, which I have read out this afternoon.
Of course, in the conditions of Northern Ireland in the last three years, if marches are to be held, there is an immense danger at least of sectarian conflict if of nothing else, and the Army was sent there by the last Administration to try to prevent this conflict. If marches are to be held which are against the law, as this march was, then the dangers become greater. If the hon. Gentleman would persuade those concerned not to break the law and would advise those who are gunmen to cease their activities he would be playing a considerable part in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Prime Minister realise that every soldier serving in Northern Ireland, and serving, I think I can say with the agreement of the whole House, with great courage and amazing restraint, will have his morale maintained by Lord Widgery's findings, which have dealt a blow to the Irish Republican Army propaganda?
Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are areas in Northern Ireland today which are no-go areas? Can he send out a message from this House that the Government will do everything they can to get rid of the

gunmen who are terrorising the people in those areas—Roman Catholic people who wish for nothing but peace?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that when members of the Forces can see Lord Widgery's conclusions they will agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The question of the no-go areas is rather wider than the matters Lord Widgery was dealing with. He sets out very clearly what his terms of reference were, how he interpreted them and how he explained them to all those who were concerned in Londonderry and all those who gave evidence. It is desirable that in every part of the United Kingdom it should be possible for the police to patrol peaceably and maintain law and order and the freedom of our citizens.

Mr. Delargy: Does the Prime Minister realise that some of us were pleased to hear him express regret towards the end of his statement at the deaths of 13 persons, because so far no one from the Government side of the House has ever expressed it.

Hon. Members: We have.

Mr. Delargy: No, you have not.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. I myself expressed the utmost concern at the time about the tragedy of that Sunday in Londonderry.

Mr. Callaghan: Before we leave this topic, may I ask one further question in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has just said? Is it possible in the case of those who have been found innocent yet lost their lives to make some restitution to their relatives in the way of compensation? Would not this be a gesture to those who have been caught up in these events, to the relatives of those who have lost their lives in this way?

The Prime Minister: I should like to give consideration to that. I think there are proceedings which could be pursued in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the


purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the grave dangers to be suffered by the public if the railway men are forbidden to work in accordance with rules most of which are based on safety.
We are faced with a situation in which apparently the rules of the railways are to be interfered with on terms which this House is not told. We are not told what a Minister is asking. All we know is that a strict application of safety rules has proved extremely inconvenient. But the extreme danger that will result if a union is instructed that it may no longer tell its members to abide by the rules is something which we may all contemplate. Indeed, which of us will be safe in approaching a level crossing? These are matters which the public should consider and should have some chance of seeking reassurance on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the grave dangers to be suffered by the public if the railway men are forbidden to work in accordance with rules most of which are based on safety.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. I have a procedural decision to make. I cannot accept his application or put it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mrs. Jill Knight: I wish to make a complaint of breach of privilege arising out of a report in the Daily Express of today's date that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr.

McManus) says that because of parliamentary privilege he and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) will be free from arrest if they stay within the precincts of the House of Commons, and that, therefore, both of them intend to remain here in this House following their gaol sentence. This appears to contravene the rules of privilege as set out in "Erskine May".
I should like to make it quite plain that I am accusing not the Daily Express but the Member who made the statement reported.
This matter raises the question of how far you and I in this House, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to go to protect a Member from the consequences of breaking the law, even in Northern Ireland. It is a serious matter, which seems to constitute a breach of privilege, and I ask for your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady is founding her complaint on a newspaper, will she kindly bring it to the Table?

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the practice which has now been accepted by the House, I will rule upon this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): On a point of order— —

Mr. Speaker: Is it a matter arising out of the question of privilege?

Mr. McNamara: It is a question on your statement, Mr. Speaker. When you are reaching your decision, will you be looking at legislation of a former subordinate Parliament and its effect in this country?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be considering all relevant considerations.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th April]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Sir Robert. In fact, I wish to raise three separate points of order. Would it be for your convenience and that of the Committee if I went through them one by one?

The Chairman: It would be better for me if I answered them separately.

Mr. Deakins: My first point of order relates to the remaining Amendment to the Clause, No. 202. I apologise for not raising this matter with you yesterday, Sir Robert. It concerns the position of the following Amendments: No. 257, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) This Act shall not come into force until all Commonwealth states have achieved satisfactory trading arrangements with the European Economic Community.
No. 258, in line 23, at end add:
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) above, the United Kingdom shall not accede to any treaty which contravenes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, nor shall any such treaty be regarded as one of the Community Treaties.
They were on the Notice Paper yesterday but were not selected. I suspect that they were in order but were not selected since they were in much the same terms as Amendment No. 202, which is the subject of our next debate. Would it be in order to discuss the subject of those Amendments—namely, that the Bill shall not come into force until certain things have happened elsewhere—in the debate on Amendment No. 202? If that were not in order, would it be in order to raise the subject dealt with in Amendment Nos. 257 and 258 in the general discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me enough

time to ascertain the answer. It is that the Amendments in any case were out of order.

Mr. Deakins: My second point of order, Sir Robert, concerns your selection of Amendments to Clause 2. The first is Amendment No. 79, with which are grouped a number of other Amendments, including Amendment No. 54, which relates to Schedule 1——

The Chairman: I do not think I can conveniently consider that until we come to Clause 2. I shall, of course, hear the hon. Gentleman when we arrive at that point.

Mr. Deakins: My third point of order also relates to the grouping of other Amendments to Clause 2. Should I be in order, Sir Robert, in awaiting the start of our consideration of that Clause and raising it then?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I am also hoping to engage the attention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on this matter. You will recall that on 15th March we put questions to Ministers as to their intentions in handling the Schedules to the Clauses. These points were put in particular in relation to Clause 1. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a preliminary view at the time. I think it was the impression of all of us that his mind was not closed.
We have had the opportunity to reflect on the matter further. For my part, I think now that the case made on 15th March, to the effect that it would be to the convenience of the Committee in considering Clause 1 to be able to take Schedule 1 as soon as possible after reaching the end of Clause 1, appears even stronger than it did on 15th March.
In Clause 1 we are seeking to deal with what has been described as the "treaty complex", because the Clause defines the matters of the treaties to which we are acceding. But in Clause 1 only two of the main treaties are even mentioned. Very heavy reliance is placed upon Schedule 1. Even there, however, not all the treaties are spelt out. Nevertheless, it contains much more information about them than does Clause 1. As we come near to the end of Clause 1 I suggest


that it would be artificial to complete our consideration of Clause 1 and then to have to wait for what could be a considerable time before we reached the Schedule. My view is strengthened by the fact that in Clause 2 we shall be dealing at once with rights, obligations and other matters which arise out of the treaties.
It would be of great advantage to have an opportunity of discovering and discussing what those treaties are before one moves on to discuss the rights, obligations, powers and other matters which flow from them. In addition, the elucidation and our understanding of Clause 2 are heavily dependent upon Schedule 2. I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman some indication of this case, so it will come as no surprise to him. There is no particular advantage to either side in the course I suggest and I hope that he will be able to respond in a way which would be to the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I reinforce the plea made by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). I would found it on another ground as well. He is, of course, right in saying that the contents of Part I of Schedule 1 are so intimately bound up with what we have been discussing on Clause 1 that it would be a natural and inevitable transition to go on to consider Part I of the Schedule. But Part II of the Schedule is, in a logical sense, preliminary to the discussion of Clause 2, and the understanding and discussion of Clause 2 will be greatly facilitated if we have understood Part II of Schedule 1, otherwise we shall be in the position, almost, in which we should find ourselves approaching Clause 2 without having dealt with Clause 1, for in some sense Part II of Schedule 1 is in the same way preliminary and necessary to the understanding of Clause 2.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It is purely interpretation.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that it is purely interpretation. I do not think there is any dispute about whether it is interpretation. The question is at what stage in considering

the Bill in Committee it would be most convenient to the Committee for this interpretation to be considered. After all Clause 1 consists of interpretation and it has been thought logical that we should consider Clause 1—the interpretation Clause—not at the end of the Bill, as is usual, but at the beginning. I am only exhorting my right hon. and learned Friend to follow in this respect even more closely his own logic in drawing up the Bill, whereby he put the contents of Clause 1 at the outset.
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will find it just as much in his own interest for his desire to make progress as it would be in the interest of the Committee to table the necessary Motion for Schedule 1 to be taken after Clause 1, because otherwise, after the passage of time in the consideration of the intervening Clauses—if we complete that consideration—these matters, which are now fresh in our minds, and for many of which no long explanation is now required, will require to be exhumed and discussed anew, inevitably at much greater cost of time. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request.

The Chairman: I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should deal with this matter. It is more for him than for me.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Ripon): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) for giving me notice that he wished to raise this question again. As the Committee knows, I considered the matter carefully before I made my statement on 15th March, and for the reasons I gave then there seems no overriding case for departing from the normal order by taking Schedule 1 immediately after Clause 1.
For one thing, one of the definitions in Schedule 1 refers in terms to Clause 2, and it could not be discussed except in that context. However, as I said on 15th March, I was willing to listen to the arguments. There are no set rules about this matter. I referred to the fact that in Finance Bills it frequently happens that appropriate Schedules are taken after the appropriate parts of the Bill.
I therefore have a suggestion to make which I hope will be acceptable to the Committee. Schedules 1 and 2 relate closely to Part I of the Bill because, like Part I, they are concerned with general provisions about Community definitions and subordinate legislation. It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable proposition, and, I think, meets the convenience of the Committee and the argument put forward, that we should take Schedules 1 and 2 after Part I. If that were generally acceptable, I should be happy to move the necessary Motion in due course.

Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman because the proposal that he is suggesting is undoubtedly an improvement on what might otherwise have been the case, when we would have gone through the whole of the Clauses before being able to reach the Schedules. But although this is an improvement, it falls rather short of what I still believe would be a better arrangement.
We have to face the fact that Clause 2 is very much the heart of the Bill and, with the best will in the world, it will engage the attention of the Committee for some time. The interval between consideration of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 on the present order will be considerable and, I believe, undesirable. In the end, it would undoubtedly cause us all considerable difficulty in having to refresh our memories and to go over old ground again. I concur in this matter with the right hon. Member for WolverHampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has faced my second point, which was that I find it difficult to envisage a serious discussion on this question of rights, obligations and so on in Clause 2 without having dealt with what are the treaties in which those rights and obligations are founded. We should be greatly helped if we could get the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is flexible and sensible in these matters, to go a little further to meet the convenience of all of us.

Sir Elwyn Jones: One point which emerged in the small hours of this morning as a very important loose end of this discussion was what precisely are the treaties covered by paragraph 7 of Schedule 1. I do not

want to raise this in any tendentious way at the moment. It emerged clearly from the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy that there are serious difficulties, and this was highlighted by the earlier speech of the Solicitor-General. Perhaps in the light of the submissions that have been made the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look again at this point.
We are grateful to him for going some of the way to meet us. If, when we come to the heart of the Bill, namely the discussion on Clause 2, when we are to consider the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions arising from the treaties, there is still an area of doubt about what are the relevant treaties, that will be a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding.

Mr. Rippon: I will certainly do my best to meet the wishes of the Committee but I think that I have put the matter fairly in the context of what we do with Finance Bills where similar considerations arise. The practice frequently is that to meet the convenience of the House or Committee Schedules are taken after the appropriate Part. The definition of "Enforceable Community right" is:
 'Enforceable Community right' and similar expressions shall be construed in accordance with section 2(1) of this Act.
These matters are bound together.
As to the loose ends to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) refers, we cleared them up last night so far as they concerned amendments to the Bill. The Amendments were proposed and were not carried. I explained why it had been decided to rely upon the treaties which had already been published and the lists already provided in another form. That is perhaps a separate issue to which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to return later. I should have thought that the appropriate thing was to consider these matters at the end of our consideration of Part I. I will certainly bear these matters in mind.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 202, in page 2, line 23, at end add:
(5) This Act shall not come into force unless Denmark, Norway, and the Republic of Ireland


ratify the Treaty of Accession, nor unless under terms of treaties with the Communities the non-acceding European Free Trade Association countries continue to enjoy free trade in industrial products, with the acceding European Free Trade Association countries'.
This Amendment provides that the Act would not come into force unless Norway, Denmark and Ireland finally decide to join the EEC and until industrial free trade area arrangements are made for the non-applicant countries. This Amendment would achieve one important result, namely that this country would not impair its international reputation by breaking faith with the other EFTA countries. At present the Government do not appear to care very much about this. The Amendment would ensure that Britain did not desert EFTA and join the EEC until Denmark, Norway and Ireland had decided by the democratic process of a referendum whether to join and until it was certain that we in the United Kingdom would not be compelled to raise industrial tariffs against those EFTA countries, notably Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Finland, who have had the wisdom not to apply to join the EEC. It would also, incidentally, ensure that they would not raise their industrial tariffs against us.
We should remember in all this that it was we, the British, through a Government of which the Present Prime Minister was a member, who started EFTA in the first place. We persuaded the other EFTA nations, now numbering eight, to join in an experiment of industrial free trade which in due course succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. It is sometimes forgotten that we agreed in the London Declaration of June, 1961, not to join the EEC unless all EFTA members acted together. It is worth recalling the essential wording of the London Declaration of 1961 which said:
Ministers agreed that if such a course, negotiations by the EFTA countries for membership or association with the EEC should then appear possible, the members of EFTA should co-ordinate their actions, and remain united throughout the negotiations. Ministers resolved that the European Free Trade Association, the obligations created by the Convention between the members and the momentum towards integration within the Associaion would be maintained at least until satisfactory arrangements had been worked out in negotiations to meet the various legitimate interests of all members of EFTA and thus enable them all to participate from the same date in an integrated European market.

Although the other EFTA members were privately pressurised—I think that is a fair way to put it—by the British Foreign Office in 1967 to water down that undertaking, they did so most unwillingly and contrary to their better judgment. It is not a very creditable record from the British point of view, any more than is the treatment of the Commonwealth countries in these negotiations. Throughout this story, it should be made known, the British Foreign Office, in my opinion through its mistaken tactics and failure to understand the real issues at stake, repeatedly played a part in all of this which was not merely somewhat discreditable to our reputation with EFTA countries but damaging to British interests in the ultimate.
In the years from 1966 onwards Sweden and Switzerland notably, with support from most of the other EFTA countries, wished as a first priority to strengthen EFTA into an effective free trade group which could in due course negotiate from strength with the EEC to achieve a genuine free trading, democratic Western Europe without infringing anyone's national independence. That would have been the wisest course for us. In the event, at one EFTA conference after another we saw the British Foreign Office not merely seeking to stifle these efforts and to substitute on the agenda as a first priority an ill-thought-out unilateral rush into the EEC by the United Kingdom but also doing its best to conceal from the public here and in the other EFTA countries what was happening. It even pressurised Switzerland and Sweden and the rest to withhold information from their people. Indeed, if it had not been for those efforts by the British Foreign Office I believe that a solution which would have been in British interests, the strengthening of EFTA, could easily have gone ahead in those years.
5.0 p.m.
One of the worst pieces of misrepresentation which one heard, and which one still hears today, was the pretence that EFTA would somehow be broken up if the United Kingdom did not apply to join the EEC. That was a straight lie, and a particularly poisonous one in the circumstances. The truth was that, had it not been for the British Foreign Office's mistaken tactics, EFTA would not merely have continued but would have been


greatly strengthened, as the Swedish and Swiss Governments and others urged throughout. Norway would never have joined the EEC unless Britain and Denmark did so, and Denmark, the one EFTA country which, for economic reasons we all well know, did wish to join the EEC, always made it clear, when challenged at EFTA conferences, that she would not join unless Britain did so.
It is, therefore, certain that, if the British Government had not gone back on the undertakings in the London Agreement, EFTA would have prospered and would have been strengthened to the benefit of all of us; and in my opinion, though, naturally, this is not so certain, real negotiations between equals would probably have been possible between EEC and EFTA. Indeed, never since the days of Neville Chamberlain has so much damage, and such gratuitous damage, been done to British interests by British foreign policy itself. This story ended in the so called Soames affair when the free trade area offer was made to this country and turned down without even serious consideration. The fact is that the EFTA system as it was developing in 1967 was a system wholly in Britain's economic interest and wholly in accordance with the political sentiments of the British people.
While we are discussing EFTA, it is, I think, worth considering just for the moment the pre-eminent advantages which it had for us, and indeed, could still have for us—for us as a world trading, democratic nation with a standard of living which is dependent on free imports of food and raw materials. EFTA had become in less than 10 years a group of nine nations with a population of 100 million and complete industrial free trade between all the members. Our trade with the other EFTA members had doubled or more than doubled in those 10 years, and our total trade with EFTA and the Commonwealth countries together represented, and still does today, about 45 per cent. of our total trade, both imports and exports, compared with some 20 percent. to 21 per cent. which we do with the EEC. Indeed, it is interesting that in the last year, comparing 1971 with 1970, despite all the talk about joining EEC, our exports to the sterling area in that period rose by 20 per cent. and

our exports to the EEC by only 10 per cent. Therefore, in discussing EFTA trade and Commonwealth trade we are talking not merely about a very important but about a growing proportion of our export trade.
These advantages we enjoyed, and could enjoy, without having to suffer any of the horrors of the common agricultural policy of the EEC, which must burden our balance of payments, and, incidentally, redistribute income in this country still further from the poor to the rich, and force us to erect trade barriers against the Commonwealth, with damage to world trade as a whole. All these disadvantages could have been avoided by our remaining a member of EFTA and taking the steps which were offered to us to strengthen it.
I would add, what, I think, hon. Members on this side of the Committee in particular will notice, that one of the consequences of deserting EFTA and joining the EEC, which we could have avoided, is a further transfer of national income within this country back from the poorer section to the richer, which a recent, excellent analysis of this problem, an analysis which hon. Members can find set out in the Financial Times of 13th April, has shown must inevitably follow from the system of food taxation and value-added tax which would be forced on us if we were to join EEC. For that reason, I say in passing, it seems to me that anyone who simultaneously advocates greater social equality in this country and joining EEC is either very disingenuous or singularly ill informed.
Moreover in addition to those economic advantages, membership of EFTA did not require any subjection of the British Parliament to the bureaucratic decrees of the Commission or Council of Ministers in Brussels, and subjecting our sovereignty and independence to an un-elected body over which the British electorate have no control. No such supra national arrangements existed in EFTA. All that, had we decided to follow the alternative course, would have been as totally unnecessary as it is obnoxious to sincere believers in parliamentary government in this country. EFTA gives the enormous advantage of a full and free-industrial market without any infringement of sovereignty or parliamentary rights.
By remaining members of EFTA, not merely could we have retained all those political and economic gains but we could also have avoided paying the annual financial tribute which we shall have to pay to the EEC if we join on the present terms—probably about £500 million a year. No such tribute is payable in EFTA from one member to another. This is yet another huge advantage of the arrangements in EFTA.
It is a remarkable fact that the total EFTA administrative machine, which has achievd 100 per cent. industrial free trade in less than 10 years between nine nations with a population of 100 million people, costs financially only about one-half of the EEC's propaganda budget alone, which has been used, as the Committee knows, in recent years—that is to say, the EEC's propaganda budget—not merely for lavish entertainment in Brussels and elsewhere, for support of innumerable so-called external briefing officers in that city and the dissemination of glossy pamphlets far and wide but also for the payment of what are known as retaining fees to selected top people in Western Europe in business and industry and communications and public life. These heavy burdens and dubious practices we could also have avoided had we remained an active and loyal member of EFTA.
Not merely that, but we should have avoided the breach with the Commonwealth and the interruption to Commonwealth trade which Government policy has forced upon us. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) frowns in a puzzled fashion, but surely he understands that membership of EFTA does not require us to raise tariffs or levies, as we shall have to do if we join the EEC, against either developed or developing Commonwealth countries. We should not have to destroy the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and we should be allowed to go on trading freely with New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan and other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that none of the remarkably valuable opportunities for Commonwealth countries which our entry into the Commonwealth Market will give—and

which are so valuable that three Commonwealth countries joined in association even before we became members of the Common Market—would be available to them were we merely to remain within EFTA? Is it not therefore understandable that those Commonwealth countries have enthusiastically supported our efforts to join this great trading Community?

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) looks into the matter more carefully he will find that that is complete nonsense. If as the result of joining the EEC on these terms we incur an enormous balance of payments deficit, which is what is now in prospect, our ability to help the developing Commonwealth country, either by aid or by importing their goods, will be heavily reduced. That is likely to be one of the main effects on Commonwealth countries, but I must not be led too far down that path.

Mr. Deakins: In answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), did not the three Commonwealth countries—the East African Economic Union—enter into an association agreement with the EEC as a matter of self-defence because the Common Market since it first started has operated by erecting tariff barriers against imports from developing countries and then relaxing those tariff barriers as the price of the economic imperialism of giving big opportunities to the exporters of the Common Market countries? These East African countries had no option but to enter into an association agreement as the price of ensuring that they can continue to export what they were exporting before the Common Market started.

Mr. Jay: What the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) does not understand is that if the Common Market exists, all sorts of countries will make trade agreements with it, as they are making trade agreements with the Soviet Union, China, the United States and every other large trading bloc. That proves nothing more than that those blocs are in existence and that trading arrangements have to be made. The hon. Gentleman surely cannot deny that if we break up EFTA altogether in order to join the EEC, tariffs and levies will go up between Britain and many Commonwealth countries, both developed and undeveloped.


I should like to look at what the situation has become between ourselves and our EFTA partners, because the Committee and the public have given too little attention to this. As part of the propaganda which we have experienced there has been a persistent attempt to conceal from the British public the real dilemma which faces us and always has faced us. If we joined the EEC the inescapable dilemma was that either we broke up the EFTA free trading group, which we had ourselves created, and re-erected industrial tariffs against the non-applicant members, which would have been a damaging and deplorable thing to do, or an industrial free trade area would have to be formed between the non-applicant members and the enlarged EEC, in which case it would be proved that the Western European industrial free trade area was a possible project after all—and it is indeed now being created. That is the solution which would have given us all the advantages without the burden of joining the EEC.
We know from the latest reports that this industrial free trade area is to be formed as a result of negotiations between the EEC and the non-applicant countries. Those countries—Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal and Iceland—are to receive all the benefits of an industrial free trade area with the rest of EFTA, EEC and ourselves without the burdens of the common agricultural policy or the sacrifice of parliamentary rights to Brussels institutions.
5.15 p.m.
Had it not been for the extraordinary policy that we have followed, we also could have had all these advantages and avoided the burdens. As it is, if we join on these terms the British public alone of the 15 nations involved will pay the full price. Norway, Denmark and Ireland are not great food importers and might therefore gain rather than lose from the common agricultural policy's financial contribution. The non-applicant countries would neither pay anything into these Brussels funds nor sacrifice any parliamentary control over their own internal affairs. The British public, almost alone, would pay a huge economic price and sacrifice control of their own affairs.
Of all the solutions which we might have found, this is the worst possible for British interests, both in the short and the long term. The latest offer made to the non-applicant countries shows that, if we had played our cards properly and shown a little more wisdom and foresight, we could have had, and still can if we reject these terms, the solution that would have suited us best of all—that is to say, an industrial free trade area without any restrictions in trading with the rest of the world. This is the extraordinary situation into which the policy of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office in recent years has led this country. It means, in effect, that the ordinary British population—the bulk of which is wage-earning—through food taxes largely and through value-added tax, will, almost alone, have to bear the cost of inefficient agriculture in France and Italy and also, incidentally, the rampant tax evasion in those two countries.
The £500 million which we should have to pay yearly to agricultural funds represents about one-half of the income tax revenue lost in France alone, according to official French estimates, as a result of income tax evasion. This is one of the realities of what joining the EEC on these terms would mean.
Having got into this situation, the least we can do is to keep some residual faith with our EFTA partners by insisting that at least they are granted the industrial free trade area status which we might have had and that new tariffs are not re-erected between us, and at the same time make it perfectly clear, as does the Amendment, that we in the United Kingdom will not ourselves accept this bargain until the other three applicant countries have decided to join by a process of popular consent, which is so much more democratic than any which the Government apparently believe the British electorate deserves.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in his wide-ranging Second Reading speech on the Amendment, but will relate my remarks to the many relevant points which he made on Amendment No. 202.
The first point I wish to make concerns the one matter on which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; namely, the


efficiency of EFTA and the way in which it has worked. It has been a splendid example of co-operation in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the low cost of the organisation, and I take this opportunity of congratulating the Secretary-General and his staff on their extremely efficient work over the years. They have carried out a splendid task and should be congratulated.
I must point out that there is hardly anything else in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with which I agree. As the Committee knows, I have the good fortune on occasions to spend some time in attending various meetings in Europe and in meeting colleagues from the EFTA countries at EFTA meetings and at conferences in the Council of Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman and I do not live in the same world or Europe. We obviously do not meet the same people or hear the same views. The right hon. Gentleman's Europe is a Europe of 20 years ago and not a Europe of the 1970s.
I say, with no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is perhaps too blinded by his antagonism to the general concept of joining Europe to listen to what is said in Europe both by European politicians and by the people of Europe today. They certainly would not agree with his view about their future in Europe.
This Amendment divides itself into two halves, the first dealing with applicant countries. Here the right hon. Gentleman said that we should not take any action until the three other applicant countries have decided to go in, in other words, he said that we should hang on their decision, we should wait until they had taken a referendum, and we should then decide whether to join. This is a nonsense. We are the most important country outside the Common Market, and the applicant countries are looking to us for a lead. They look to hon. Members in this House and to this country to take a decision as to whether it is in the interests of this country and of EFTA to join the Common Market.
I ask the Committee to remember the reasons for the setting up of EFTA in the first place. It was set up following the break-down of the original attempt to join the Community in the late 1950s.

The organisation of EFTA was set up as a temporary measure to tide us over until we came to an arrangement to join the Community. Now, thank goodness, the moment has come when we shall be able to terminate the temporary phase—which in my view has lasted too long—and join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the passage which I quoted from the London declaration clearly said that, although this was the ultimate objective, it was agreed that all EFTA members would act together and that nobody would join the EEC until a satisfactory arrangement had been made for all—which is precisely what the Amendment would secure?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am about to come to that point. I am glad it has been reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman. Originally the right hon. Gentleman said that we were breaking faith and that the Foreign Office had been taking action at conferences and meetings in this context over a number of years. This is not the view of the other applicant countries. It is not the view of the Norwegians, the Danes or the Irish—[Interruption.] They are not applicant countries, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I will come to the Swiss, the Portuguese and the Finns shortly.
I do not believe we have broken faith. The London declaration clearly said that when terms could be negotiated freely we should act in concert, and this is exactly what we are doing. The Committee knows that each country has its own methods of approaching these matters. We have our parliamentary procedures, and other countries adopt different methods. We shall be taking these decisions between now and 1st January, 1973. It has been clearly stated that if any succeeding country fails to ratify the treaty by 1973, the treaty will nevertheless enter into force, and everybody has appreciated that this will be the procedure.
I find nothing which has occurred in the past few months which has either damaged or broken faith with our partners in EFTA. This also goes for the other non-applicant countries of EFTA, and the Swiss and the Swedes are now looking towards the European Economic Community for a much closer association in every possible way.
The right hon. Gentleman made a further contradictory point. He first said that the non-applicant countries—the Swedes, the Swiss, the Portuguese and the Finns, to mention the main countries—were either negotiating for or had succeeded in negotiating a virtual industrial free trade area for most industrial goods with the EEC as it will be when enlarged. Yet in another part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that in joining the EEC we would be setting up vast industrial barriers between ourselves and our previous EFTA partners. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. This will not be the case, as he well knows.

Mr. Jay: That is not what I said. I said that either it must involve the setting up of tariffs against other EFTA countries or it must mean that EFTA countries will establish an industrial free trade area with the EEC without taking on any of the burdens, which is a solution that would be open to us.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With respect, that was the right hon. Gentleman's second point. The first point he made was that when we go into the Community on1st January, 1973, barriers will be erected between us and our former partners in EFTA in respect of trade in industrial goods. But this is not so, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Those former partners will have completed negotiations for an industrial free trade area between them and the EEC.
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the perfect solution for this country would be to join in a free trade association and then for us to negotiate with the EEC. However, we would then have no control, no voice, indeed no say whatever in the policies which govern the EEC. We should be sitting outside the EEC, we would have no voice in its councils, we would have no member of the Council of Ministers, nobody in the European Parliament and none of our nationals would be working in the Commission or as commissioners—we would have no say whatever.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman does not like this situation. I feel that his hatred of the Common Market has blinded him to what is happening in Europe and to what people are saying.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is making a point which was not part of Government or pro-Market propaganda before the vote on 28th October. He is saying now that we are being asked to pay a price of several hundred million pounds for the advantages of membership of the EEC which previously in Government propaganda had been regarded as the price for the economic advantages of a large industrial free trade area. Now it is pointed out that we could have had these advantages without paying the price, and the hon. Gentleman is now saying that we are paying the price to have a political influence. Surely that is a different issue which has not been considered fully in this House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That was not entirely what I said. I do not believe, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe, that joining the EEC is purely an economic concept. In my view it is not and never has been. If we join in an industrial free trade area, we get some of the benefits, but we are at the mercy of those who control and make policies. We are there by courtesy of our agreement with them. The hon. Gentleman appears to be confining membership of the EEC solely to the industrial side. But other advantages will accrue to us. It would be out of order if I were to discuss them now. The Committee has discussed some of them in past days, and undoubtedly they will come up again when we consider Amendments to other Clauses of the Bill.
I turn now to the second part of this Amendment, which concerns the non-applicant countries. As I said to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, their view has changed. I have been surprised and gratified to find that one's Swedish colleagues at EFTA meetings and at the Council of Europe are coming more and more to see the advantages of working more closely with Europe from the point of view of their own country. I visited Sweden last autumn. I am afraid that I found a rather unhappy state of affairs, and it is only right to express anxiety about it. Although the industrial free trade agreements which may be negotiated with the EEC for the Swedes will cover most of their existing products, one problem which has not been solved yet concerns Swedish


timber exports. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will do his best with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to solve that difficulty.
In the case of the Swiss, we have perhaps made a small error, though not because the Swiss are antagonistic. They are not. However, I hope that our cooperation and collaboration with the Swiss in industrial, political and financial matters will be a little closer than it has been in recent months. A few days ago I had the honour of interviewing Herr Stoppe, the president or the governor of the Federal Bank of Switzerland, and we discussed questions of monetary co-operation in Europe. I was very surprised to learn that he had not been very closely involved in the negotiations between the EEC and ourselves over the narrowing of margins of fluctuation between EEC currencies and other matters concerning monetary co-operation. I hope that this will be put right in the near future.
As for our Portuguese allies, although agreement has been reached on the industrial side I hope that there will be some agreement with the EEC about the access to EEC countries of imports from Portugal's colonial territories and of her tomato exports.
I can find nothing to support in this Amendment. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, basically was repeating his Second Reading speech, to which we listened with great interest, against the concept of joining the Common Market. He reinforced his argument by allegations of broken faith by the Government and the Foreign Office with our EFTA partners. However, that is not how they see it. They are keen, if not enthusiastic, that this country should take the lead in making the decision to join the EEC. If we do, in my view there is no doubt that the other applicant countries will follow that lead with enthusiasm.
I cannot support the second part of the Amendment either. In the circumstances, what is being done for the non-applicant countries is the best possible, though I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will remember my few cautionary words. Having said that, I find it impossible to support the Amendment.

Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was a little less than accurate in dealing with the history of the European Free Trade Association. He made the cardinal mistake when he said that the formation of EFTA was necessary for Britain in order that we might pave the pathway to Brussels. That is not my reading of the events at the end of the 1950s or the movement into the 1960s which brought EFTA into being. If the hon. Gentleman reads the speeches of his right hon. Friend who was responsible for the formation of EFTA, he will realise that not only is he inaccurate historically but he is misreading the whole concept of European unity both at that time and in today's context.
In some way in the course of his speech he stumbled on this matter of European unity. That is what makes this Amendment so important in the context of British entry. If we reject the Amendment We shall divide Europe and not unite it. It is no use talking about joining a vast new market in Europe of about 300 million people if we leave out countries like Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and the other members of EFTA. The hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. However he should be consistent about membership of the EEC. Once we are inside those tariffs walls, all the other countries which have not made application to join are outside them. As a result, after 1st January, 1973, we shall have two Europes instead of one.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Has not the hon. Gentleman understood the point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North? The non-applicant countries are negotiating an industrial free trade area for themselves. For industrial goods there will be no barriers. Those countries will not participate in the other advantages, but they will have that one, which is, after all, the nub of the existing European Free Trade Association Agreement.

Mr. Milne: That proves my point about the hon. Gentleman's speech. Not only has he misunderstood the EFTA position; he has misunderstood the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
Let us consider first the applicant EFTA countries—Norway, Denmark and Ireland—and the importance that the Prime Minister attaches to them. So concerned was the right hon. Gentleman about the guarantees that Norway was asking for in December last year on agriculture and fisheries that he thought it necessary to chide the Norwegians about the fact that in their negotiations they were asking for more safeguards, more guarantees and better conditions than his own Government were prepared to seek.
If there are differences on the road to Brussels between Norway, an applicant country, and the Prime Minister of Britain, how much greater are the difficulties which will arise in Europe when we find ourselves with a divided EFTA—some inside in the Community and some outside.
The Prime Minister's letter to Trygve Bratteli was described in The Times of 4th December, 1971, under the headline,
Norway suspects Britain of double game".
I am not keen on The Times interpretation of what the Prime Minister said, but, reading his letter to Trygve Bratteli, I cannot but be impressed by what the Prime Minister has to say to his Norwegian counterpart in the concluding paragraph of his letter:
If your negotiators are able to show this limited degree of flexibility and willingness to accommodate the EEC on points today, I believe that an agreement is within reach, which in a satisfactory way accommodates all our important interests. In the contrary case I fear that the pressure of ourselves and the other candidate countries to get an independent agreement without Norway will be very strong. I would very much regret it if such a situation is created.
What were the British Government asking the Norwegians to concede to make our own agreement on conditions look better in this House and in the country? In another brief paragraph—I will not read any more from the Norwegian letter at this stage—the point that the Prime Minister makes to his Norwegian counterpart is stated as follows:
The other point is that your negotiators in Brussels today"—
the Norwegian negotiators—
also should show some willingness to accept a six mile fisheries limit for a small part of Norway's Southern coast

We know what the Chancellor of the Duchy told us about the difficulties of agreement on our own fisheries position regarding the six and twelve mile limits. If we leave the Amendment out of the European Communities Bill we shall not only damage our own interests in Europe but we shall build up barriers in Europe which will make the enlarged European Economic Community a complete negation of the supposed united Europe which the Community set out to produce.
As many of us have argued over a long period the danger of the application to join the EEC, whether it be in the 1961–62 period, in 1967 or in this latest application, is that it stands a greater chance of dividing than of uniting Europe, because the difficulties which will arise for us and the other members of the enlarged Community following 1st January, 1973, will be enormous.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West put his finger on the problem. The non-applicant countries of EFTA will not have reached accommodation with the Community by the end of the transitional periods on fisheries and matters of that kind on which arrangements have been made between ourselves and the EEC.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is talking only about Sweden. There is no question of any fisheries matters concerning Portugal, and Switzerland has none at all. Sweden in this particular context is content with the existing setup.

Mr. Milne: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to present his argument in his own way. The Amendment deals with applicant and non-applicant EFTA countries. If he cites Portugal on fisheries, he must also include Ireland and Finland. The question of fisheries is a matter not only for Norway but for the non-applicant members of EFTA.
I want now to deal with another alliance in Europe which is being broken up as a result of the methods used by our negotiators in applying for entry to the EEC. Prior to the formation of EFTA and all through the long years when EFTA existed, there was within the framework and structure of EFTA a Nordic alliance which kept together the countries of northern Europe. That


alliance was based on the old Hansa League of past centuries. The Nordic alliance, which had a very vital part not only in the present day move towards unity in Europe but in past unities, will also be interfered with and be in danger on the day we step inside the EEC, and particularly on the day, if that day comes, when Norway's and Denmark's applications have been ratified.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentlemen is not right. He must not mislead the Committee. The Nordic alliance or the Scandinavia alliance of Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark has, at the request of the Finnish Government, been put into cold storage. I am glad that he has referred to the Icelandic fisheries matter. That has been referred to the International Court at The Hague for settlement. That is why I excluded it from anything that I said.

Mr. Milne: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the issue. We are dealing with the strict limits of this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the alliance has been put into cold storage, but the simple facts are that, application having been made and that application having been accepted by the EEC, the enlarged Community becomes a reality on a certain date. On that date, the Community having become enlarged, the question of other European alliances ceases to exist.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) indicated dissent——

Mr. Milne: It is all right for the hon. and learned Gentleman to shake his head, but if in the course of further negotiations——

Mr. Grieve: Mr. Grieve rose——

Mr. Milne: I should like to finish this point. I am not refusing to give way, but I want to elaborate this point.
If, in the course of subsequent negotiations between the non-applicant countries of EFTA they decide on some new grouping and arrangement, then possibly all will be well. But it is not correct for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West to say that on the day that we enter the EEC all the existing European alliances will remain. We have to face this fact. It is tragic to find that our leading figures in

the negotiations which have taken place have not really faced this mater at all.

Mr. Grieve: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman meant what he said; namely, that as a result of enlarging the Community other European alliances come to an end. Such is not the case at all.

Mr. Milne: The applicant countries of the Nordic alliance are Norway and Denmark. That leaves Sweden, Iceland and Finland. Let us take a much greater authority than myself on the question of a united Europe. Let us get back to the Prime Minister's letter to Trygve Bratteli. The right hon. Gentleman indicated in his letter the danger of dividing opinions among the applicant countries. He said to his Norwegian counterpart:
However, I am seriously concerned about the effects of drawn-out negotiations in this field. As we both need to obtain a satisfactory agreement, I do know from my own experience that a firm stand on a stiff attitude may give a negative result if it is kept up for too long, particularly if there are principles concerned which the Common Market regards as important.
If we are going to talk about European unity, and if we are going to go in on the basis of the present Bill without the Amendment, the interpretation of the Prime Minister's letter can mean only that so long as we are prepared to give in to the demands of the EEC in the negotiations entry will be a simple matter. Entry as it affects the EFTA partnership needs much more serious examination than this Government or the Governments of any of the other applicant countries have been prepared to give it. We have been led by propaganda to believe that the EEC is identified with Europe and that we are entering Europe and not only the EEC, but the fact is that while we are enlarging the Community we are at the same time dividing Europe.

Sir Robin Turton: Yesterday we talked about this Amendment and called it the EFTA Amendment. I notice that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have talked about the Amendment have all talked about EFTA and nothing else. I tabled Amendments which, unfortunately, the Chair was not able to accept. They questioned the rightness of putting Ireland and the EFTA countries in together, because their positions are entirely different. The Irish


Republic is not a member of EFTA, and different considerations apply to it.
If either of the two EFTA applicant countries does not find that the consent of its people is given freely to accession—a choice which the Government last night determined to deny to the British people—certain important considerations will follow, as was so accurately stated by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). After all, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know because when we first applied in 1962 we made it a firm condition that we were not going to desert our EFTA partners, and it was Lord George-Brown who, about five years ago at an EFTA conference, broke all that up and said that we would consult but that we had abandoned the pledge that had been given previously.

Mr. Rippon: I think that the changed position under the London Declaration was made clear by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was a member before this House approved the application in 1967.

Sir Robin Turton: I have the quotation here. It was announced in the last week of April, 1967, and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) made the announcement on 2nd May, 1967. He announced it when he was examined by the present Prime Minister. He said that they had changed the pledge about EFTA.
If one of the referenda were to go wrong, that would place in jeopardy the whole of that policy on trade liberalisation which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary brought to a successful conclusion in 1959 in the Stockholm Treaty. In that treaty we undertook to do all in our power to avoid a new division of Europe.
The position of Ireland is different. The only effect of a referendum going wrong in Ireland would be that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement would no longer be in existence. That is a possibility which many, certainly in the agriculture industry, would view with a certain amount of equanimity. It has always been felt that certain disadvantages flowed from that treaty. There would also be the possibility of some alteration in the free movement of labour

from Ireland to England. Again, certain considerations might make that not unattractive, when unemployment is as high as it is now.
These two subjects should not be joined together in the Amendment. Having said that, I must say that I appreciate the difficulties in which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was involved. I suggest that what we are looking at in the Amendment is a hypothetical case. As the Bill is drafted, one has to look at this hypothesis, and this covers not merely the question of EFTA and our trade agreement with the Irish Republic but also the whole question of the Accession Treaty, and I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to tell us what the answer is.
Last night we debate the Accession Treaty. If one of these referenda were to go wrong, the whole of the Accession Treaty would have to be looked at again and altered. There are such matters to be considered as the share of the financial contribution and the question of the voting powers. It would be necessary for there to be a complete amendment of the Accession Treaty, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will address himself to this hypothesis because, whereas one normally says that something is hypothetical and need not arise, owing to the structure of the Bill and the different methods for enabling the Parliaments and peoples of Britain, Ireland, Norway and Denmark to give their full-hearted consent the question has to be faced.
If one of the applicant countries drops out it will not be the same enlarged Community, but it will also require certain alterations to that part of Clause 1 and the First Schedule that we have dealt with and will be dealing with in future.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

What will be the position if either Norway or Denmark fails to give its consent by referendum? Will those countries go back to the position of being non-applicant countries, enjoying the trade liberalisation which has been obtained by Sweden and Switzerland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) suggested, or will there have to be fresh negotiations


throwing the whole matter of non-applicant and application-refused countries into the melting pot?

It is clear that the Bill must take cognisance of this possibility. It is not for me to say whether the Amendment is correctly drafted. There must be wording in the Measure to deal with the contingency of one of the applicant countries not ratifying, either because of a referendum result or because it fails to get parliamentary consent.

I had thought that the non-applicant countries would continue to enjoy free trade in industrial products. This led me to believe that the second part of the Amendment was not as important as the first. However, having always been worried not merely about free trade in industrial products but about the whole issue of Community preference, I must now ask whether the non-applicant EFTA countries will be shut out of their old EFTA partners' markets.

It must be remembered that the first question M. Pompidou put to the Prime Minister was "Do you agree that if you join you must give the Community preference?", meaning that we would have to take industrial and agricultural products from the Community rather than from the non-applicant countries.

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West describe the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North as a Second Reading speech. However, my hon. Friend himself went on to make a powerful, broad and wide-ranging speech which, allowing for interventions, was long enough to be called a Second Reading contribution.

It was the vision of a liberalisation of trade throughout Europe that was the object of the British Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the 1959 negotiations. That vision has always seemed to me to represent the right future for Britain. I cannot see how we can adopt an open seas policy along with membership of the EEC. We started the wider liberalisation of trade in EFTA, and, in my view, we should have proceeded with it throughout Europe and later throughout the world. This is why I have always felt that there is a better alternative than that proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Deakins: As I follow the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) in his devotion to the cause of wider international free trade, I ask him to accept that I have always been a prominent supporter of EFTA and an extension of that concept.
In my view EFTA should not have remained primarily concerned with industrial products but should have taken a lead in promoting—the Common Market has conspicuously failed to do this—world commodity agreements, and particularly agreements covering agricultural commodities. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find much with which to disagree in my remarks.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pointed out, the Amendment is in two distinct parts. The first relates to Denmark, Norway and the Republic of Ireland, which are co-applicant countries with us, and says that until and unless those countries ratify the Treaty of Accession, we should not finalise our arrangements to join the Common Market.
What will be the position if one or a combination of those three applicant countries decides not to enter with us? If the Republic of Ireland decides in its wisdom, as it is perfectly entitled to do, not to enter, then, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton indicated, there will be considerable difficulties over, for example, the present Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.
This Agreement relates to a number of matters, but principally to agricultural trade between our two countries. We benefit a great deal from it, for I understand from the latest statistics that the Republic of Ireland is the third or fourth best customer for our exports. This is, therefore, not a matter to be taken lightly.
If the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement did not continue, because we decided to join the EEC and the Republic of Ireland did not, what would be the position? I agree that, from the agricultural point of view, some farmers here might be pleased. But the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will be aware that in the part of the country which he represents—indeed, in the North and East—a number of livestock producers would not be pleased


because they would be deprived of Irish store cattle. Alternatively, they would be able to import them only at a considerably higher price, allowing for the substantial Common Market frontier levies which would inevitably apply if we were in the EEC and the Republic of Ireland was not.
If our livestock industry were deprived of these store cattle or if the price made their importation virtually impossible, that would have an adverse effect on our livestock industry. This is the most important part of the agriculture industry, which in turn is, in my view, the most important and valuable industry in Britain, That, in turn, would give the lie to the Government's claim about the expansion opportunities available to our agricultural producers from our joining the Community. One cannot produce livestock without readily available store cattle. It is, therefore, vital for us to ensure that we do not join unless and until the Republic of Ireland comes in with us.
Let us next consider the position if either Denmark or Norway, or both, decided in their wisdom, which they are perfectly entitled to do, not to join the Common Market. This issue will be in the balance until some time in the autumn. In the event of Denmark deciding not to join, one can be certain that Norway would stay out, being the smaller of the Nordic partners in the Nordic economic union.
On the other hand, if Norway turned down the Common Market, that would impose a severe strain on the move towards Scandinavian economic union, which has been proceeding mainly under the shield of EFTA but which is, nevertheless, an independent and worthwhile movement in its own right. In that event the Danes would be severely torn between their loyalty towards Scandinavian co-operation and their economic desire not to be separated from their two major export markets, namely, West Germany and the United Kingdom. I do not know what decision Denmark will take in such circumstances but certainly we should be imposing very great strains on that country in deciding what to do. Here again, if we have any affection and loyalty towards the EFTA countries, we ought to be in a

position to say that those of us who are applicants should all go in together or not at all.
If Denmark and Norway did not go in, we should lose—in the opinion of some sections of our agricultural industry, this would be no great loss—the Danish bacon exports, or those would have to come in under the Community tariffs and to bear a very heavy rate of duty at the frontier. There would also be difficulties for Denmark, one of the world's greatest agriculture exporters, in their dairy industry, in particular, butter and cheese. There would be difficulties for Norway in frozen fish exports to Britain.
What is being proposed at present, both in the Amendment and in the negotiations, is that these countries should retain their traditional trading advantages which have grown up in the last 10 years under EFTA with the United Kingdom, but that they should have an industrial free trade area. If Denmark stays out, an industrial free trade area in itself is not sufficient, as about 35 to 40 per cent. of Danish exports are agricultural, Denmark being a very efficient agricultural producer. The loss to the British consumer would also be incalculable, as we should have to replace the meat and dairy products which we had lost from Denmark by much higher cost Community imports.
For the bacon industry in this country—I speak feelingly on this—it is very unlikely in the foreseeable future, either in the transitional period or thereafter, that our pig industry would have sufficient confidence to increase production by the 50 per cent. necessary if we were to replace the volume of pig meat imports coming into Britain in the form of bacon hams and so on. There would be disadvantages to the Danes, to the Norwegians and to this country if we were to enter the Common Market without Denmark or Norway.
It may well be claimed that some of the disadvantages would be overcome if the other three applicant countries decided not to enter but still managed to obtain free trade area arrangements. But these free trade area arrangements would not cover agricultural products. Indeed, EFTA itself was not an agreement for an agricultural free trade area; it was an industrial free trade area. Nevertheless,


during the 12years of valuable co-operation between EFTA countries, bilateral agreements between various member States grew up to extend slowly the sphere of free trade to various agricultural products, with appropriate safeguards. Those safeguards would no longer apply if we were inside the Common Market and the applicant countries were outside because we should then be subject to the common agricultural policy, and, as the Government have found to their cost during the course of the negotiations, the common agricultural policy is non-negotiable to any extent whatever. There is no prospect, and never was—I think that both the previous Government and the present Government have recognised this in their heart of hearts, whatever they may have said in public—of ever achieving even minor alteration in the common agricultural policy, other than the adaptations necessary to accommodate a Community of ten rather than six.

Mr. Neil Marten: Did the hon. Gentleman notice the television broadcast by President Pompidou, when he was speaking to the nation about the referendum? One of the pledges he gave to the French people was that the common agricultural policy would never, never be altered. But we are told that if we go in, one of the things we shall try to do is to alter it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. One of the arguments I have always used on pro-Marketeers among my hon. Friends is that we have no chance of altering the common agricultural policy once we are in, as we shall be strengthening it by our very entrance. We shall be postponing the evil day when the costs of that policy become so outrageous that the consumers, and the politicians influenced by the consumers, have to rise up and say, "Thus far and no further. We can no longer subsidise inefficient high cost agricultural production to the detriment of agricultural imports from developing countries." But that position will not arise in the next decade.
I take issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe, wrongly in my opinion, that they stand a chance of renegotiating the agricultural terms of

entry. We cannot possibly do that. We might attempt to do so but we should be unsuccessful, mainly because of the attitude throughout the negotiations with the Community—to protect and preserve at all costs those precious parts of its common policies which have been built up laboriously over the past decade.
I now address myself to the second part of the Amendment, which relates to a continuation of free trade in industrial products between the remaining members of EFTA and the Common Market. I shall not reiterate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North on the value of EFTA as an industrial free trade area without being, and having the disadvantage of being, a customs union, without being an organisation which not only creates trade, as the Common Market does, but also diverts trade, which the Common Market does. The one accusation which cannot be levelled against industrial free trade in EFTA is that it is has led to any trade diversion in the world as distinct from trade creation. That is one of the disadvantages of the Common Market.
Furthermore, there is the point alluded to by my right hon. Friend, that we shall not have the social costs if we can maintain our links with the EFTA countries, which we are very unlikely to do. There is also the whole business of the Common Market being geared very much to the harmonisation at a very high level of indirect taxation. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree, as a matter of principle, that there is a limit, which we seem to have reached under the previous Labour Government, to the extent to which we can extend direct taxation. That is a contentious point among my right hon. and Hon. Friends. But there is no question that the social cost involved in breaking away from our EFTA partners and leaving them in the lurch will be an increasing one. There will be an increasing gap between the rich and poor, let alone the effect on the gap between rich and poor in the rest of the world.
On the subject of social costs, it has never been mentioned in any of our debates on the Common Market that EFTA, unlike the Common Market, is devoted to the principle of full employment. There is no reference in the basic introductory clauses in the Treaty of


Rome, which set out its objectives clearly, to promoting full employment, but Article 2(a) of the EFTA Convention of January, 1963, the association agreement, specifically refers to the importance of maintaining and pursuing policies which will promote and retain full employment in all the member countries.
There is also the point that no balance of payments cost will be involved if we could have merely the industrial free trade area association which the Government are hoping that our EFTA partners who are not co-applicants will obtain for themselves. We shall then have the advantage that our consumers will not be subsidising the inefficient high-cost agricultural producers of Western Europe, and indeed, perpetuating their rather antiquated methods.
A further value of EFTA, which has not so far been put to the Committee, is that the approach of EFTA to dealing with problems between its members has been very much more pragmatic than that adopted in the Common Market. It has not been necessary to set up about 250-odd clauses, as in the Treaty of Rome, with many schedules annexes and so on. Admittedly EFTA was not trying to go as far as the Common Market. But the EFTA document was very short and pragmatic by comparison.
The whole EFTA system has been based on a flexible approach to solving problems of international trade between members of the same association. It has not been necessary to set up an EFTA court like the European Court to deal with recalcitrant firms and governments. There have been a number of issues in EFTA on which there have been disputes, but they have been settled in what I am glad to describe as the time-honoured British way—by talking and by compromise, not by introducing the law into them, as is inevitable if and when we join the Common Market.
Finally on the issue of the EFTA applicant countries and those which are not getting an industrial free trade area, it must be pointed out that industrial free trade in itself would not have led to any adverse reaction from the rest of the world and particularly the United States of America, as has been caused by the common agricultural policy of the Euro-

pean Economic Community and, what is even more important, by the wide and expanding network of preferential trade agreements between the Common Market and many of the developing and semi-developed countries, nearly all of which break some of the six rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which we and all the Common Market countries were co-signatories in 1948.
Therefore, I believe that the EFTA way was infinitely preferable to the Common Market way. The least we can do in memory and loyalty to our former EFTA partners before going into Europe is to ensure that we do not go in unless they have achieved satisfactory industrial free trade provisions.
Our attitude as a country over the past 10 years to EFTA has been a dreadful story. We started off in good faith with EFTA. We were the dominant partner. This must be borne in mind when people say that the EFTA politicians are going along with us in their applications, and so on. They have had no choice but to go along with us If we as the dominant country in EFTA decide to do something, they may well protest privately, if not publicly. I have no doubt that most of the protests have been made privately and not publicly, because that is the way that EFTA always works.
The British attitude has been getting worse. If the Government decide not to accept this very reasonable Amendment, it will be a case of what one has always suspected since we put in our application in 1967. I am not making a political point; for this would have been the attitude of the Labour Government as well as this Government. That makes it neither more nor less reprehensible. The attitude of the British Government is, "Pull up the ladder. I am aboard. Once we have got in to Europe it will be hard luck on the others. We will do our best for them".
That has been the attitude of this Government throughout the negotiations. That is the changed attitude since EFTA was set up; for when EFTA was set up it was because we in particular did not want to join the Common Market. At that stage Denmark wanted to join the Common Market; Denmark was then in advance of us. However, because we were the big boys Denmark went along


with us. Denmark went through a period of heart searching before deciding that the market for her agricultural products in the United Kingdom was more important than the market for her agricultural products in Germany.
We had no co-operation in EFTA at the start in our attitude to the Common Market. Our general attitude to bringing the two areas together was that there should be an expanded co-operation between them—for instance, on things such as European patent rights and company law, all very worth while things, and nobody would object to co-operation in those regards.
A drastic change came over our conduct of affairs in relation to EFTA when, rather than going for enhanced European co-operation, we decided—wrongly, in my opinion—in the time of the last Labour Government to go for European integration and not European co-operation. I do not need to explain to the Committee after all our debates the very great differences between those two attitudes. Of the original EFTA countries only Denmark was for Western European integration. The rest would all have been very happy with some enhanced form of co-operation. Indeed, this is what they are hoping for in these negotiations. Hope by itself is not enough. We must help them.
If the other applicant countries either turn down the chance of entering the Common Market or fail to succeed in getting adequate industrial free trade area arrangements, do the Government intend to leave them in the lurch? I suspect that they do. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will make the Government's attitude clear. If that were to be the case, it would not be an honorourable position, nor would it be a desirable position in our national interest.
I remind those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are pro-marketeers that one of the original Labour conditions for opening negotiations in the time of Hugh Gaitskell was to safeguard the interest of our EFTA partners, and that meant at that time that we would not enter the Common Market unless our EFTA partners did so with us or unless we had ensured in advance adequate trading arrangements for them with an enlarged Community.
Since then there has been a subtle deterioration in and an erosion of that position which took place from 1967 onwards, when it became a question of every man for himself. We said to our EFTA partners, "We will help you, but if you do not succeed or if you decide that you are not going to go in, we shall be very sorry, but we have made up our minds and we intend to go in."
I suspect that this is the Government's attitude. If this is what the Government intend, they will reject the Amendment. If this is not what the Government intend, there is no logical reason why they should not accept this very reasonable Amendment which seems to accord with what the Government have been saying publicly in the last six months under great pressure from politicians on both sides of the House of Commons, not only from anti-Marketeers, to ensure that we do not let down our partners of the past 12 years.

Mr. Grieve: Those who have spoken so far have recognised that the Amendment falls into two distinct parts. The first part proposes that
'the Act shall not come into force unless Denmark, Norway, and the Republic of Ireland ratify the Treaty of Accession".
The second part proposes that under the terms of treaties the non-acceding European Free Trade Association countires should continue to enjoy free trade in industrial products. I shall deal first with the second limb of the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was not alone in suggesting that in some way by adhering to the European Community we were letting down our EFTA partners. The hon. Gentleman twice used the expression, "leaving them in the lurch". The hon. Gentleman rounded up at the end by using the expression, "letting them down". This completely overlooks the fact that the applicant EFTA countries were consulted about the draft Community mandate for the negotiations from the beginning and that that includes provision for free trade in industrial goods with only a few exceptions.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), I have served for a number of years as a delegate to the Council of Europe. The British delegation has regular meetings


with delegates from EFTA countries. There is not a plenary session at which we do not have such a meeting. Like my hon. Friend, I have detected no sign, either at such meetings or at the dinners which invariably succeed them, that any of our EFTA partners feels in the slightest degree let down by our applying to join the Community or by the negotiations that have successfully resulted there from.
That is a personal impression of mine, but it would be remarkable if representatives of our EFTA partners, if they had felt in any way let down or left in the lurch, had not made this clear to their friends and colleagues in the British delegation. No such impression exists. At the very beginning it was implicit in the organisation and setting up of the European Free Trade Association that it would be a step in the direction of greater integration in Europe.
6.30 p.m.
It is quite true that for special reasons—with which I shall deal briefly in a moment—some of our EFTA partners cannot follow us in applying to become members of the EEC. Switzerland and Sweden fear that it would in some way militate against their position as legalised neutrals—and I use the expression in its full international legalsense. Finland cannot follow us because of her special position as neighbour to Soviet Russia. I challenge anyone to say that the interests of these partners, for whom we have obvious friendship and great regard, have not been considered in the negotiations or that their industries are not protected by the arrangements now being negotiated.
My submission to the Committee therefore is that the second limb of this proposed Amendment is otiose and unnecessary. There is no suggestion of anyone being let down, but it is symptomatic of the opponents to entry that they should fasten upon the fact that our joining will make great changes in EFTA and as a result EFTA will be dissolved. In the same way they fastened on the special status of New Zealand and on the products of the sugar-producing countries and their position, even when those countries and New Zealand were satisfied with what had been achieved by negotiation

to protect their interest. So it is with the point which has now been made about our membership of EFTA and the changes which will result from our adherence to the Community.
I come to the first limb.
This Act shall not come into force unless Denmark, Norway, and the Republic of Ireland ratify the Treaty of Accession.
But it was provided by Article 2 of the Treaty of Accession that if any country failed to ratify by January, 1973 the treaty should nevertheless enter into force and that is the answer to the query which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) made in his speech. Why, therefore, should this country's admission be postponed because of the domestic situation in any one of these three countries? They have already decided, by their Governments, as a matter of policy, that they desire to join. They are parties to the Treaty of Accession, and all that remains is ratification.
It is astonishing that right hon. and hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), whose whole opposition to our adherence to the Community is founded upon their fear for the derogation which we shall suffer from our sovereignty and our freedom as a sovereign State in the world, should wish now, or should appear to wish by putting forward this Amendment, to postpone our interests which are considered necessary by the Government to those of other partners and other friends.
These partners and these friends negotiated with us in consultation with us, Ireland not as a member of EFTA, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out. I have no doubt that these countries will see their interests in adhesion to the European Economic Community as well. It was remarkable that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, dealing with this aspect of the Amendment, should in every sentence preface his observations with "if". "If Norway and if Denmark and if Ireland do not enter". But what reason do we have, if any, to believe that all three of these countries will not enter the Community with us to the great benefit of all four?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of speaking to this Amendment until I heard the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). They both based their arguments on the fact that they have had personal experience of the Council of Europe, meeting all the politicians from the EFTA countries at the Council of Europe.
I was a member of the Council of Europe for four years. I was also a member of the Political Committee and I think that at the time that I was a member we were represented also by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). In the Committee I was a passionate advocate of entry into the EEC. I can well remember the tortuous discussion that went on about Britain's entry into the Common Market and the relationship of EFTA to the EEC. An hon. Member who spoke earlier said that he did not meet many politicians from the EFTA countries who had doubts. Most of the representatives of the EFTA countries that I met had more than doubts; they were positively hostile to the whole question of their country's entry into the EEC.
One of the arguments I certainly advanced in support of what I believe was a much wider European unity was that we should try to seek an agreement between EFTA and the Common Market for a wider European unity embracing the whole of EFTA and the whole of EEC. This would naturally have necessitated a compromise by both organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) made the valid point that hanging over the whole discussions of the relationship between the EEC and EFTA was the threat that if we could not reach agreement between the two bodies, Britain would have to go it alone, making an approach of our own irrespective of what the rest of the EFTA countries decided. What would be the position of the weaker countries if the biggest country in EFTA, the nub, the central core of the organisation, the country which created or proposed the creation of EFTA, said that it would go it alone if agreement were not reached? They would have to say that if Britain went it alone they would be

left in an impossible position and would have to apply to join also. This is the reality of the situation. I have met Danish M.P.s who said that they did not want Britain to go ahead and that they wanted to remain outside the EEC. I can only report what I found and I was then urging them to think differently.
It is only two years since I was on the Council of Europe and I left it just before the last General Election. I had four years there, with an interruption of one year, in the whole period of the Labour Government. I was very much involved in the European arguments then. It is no good hon. Members saying that there is no real opposition among EFTA countries. There was always opposition; they were not happy about it. In a sense, the EFTA parliamentarians were appealing to us, without necessarily wanting to come out in complete opposition to their biggest partner within EFTA.
In the past two years there may well have been a great change, but primarily that is because they can now see no alternative. It is like the unfortunate situation for the mass of the British people, who want to express an opinion about whether we should go into the Common Market but are being denied the opportunity. Many of our people are sinking into apathy. They ask, "What is the point? They are going to force us in, and we can do very little about it". In fact, we can do a lot. In some of the EFTA countries something is being done. There are to be referenda. It will be interesting to see what finally happens. Anyone who believes that there will be great unanimity in those countries, with everyone rushing into the EEC, does not live in the same world as I do, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West. There will be a great deal of opposition.
I am not a dedicated EFTA man, but when I carefully studied the differences between EFTA and the EEC I found the contracts very interesting. True, there were one or two rules which had a certain similarity, as on the question of competition, and there may be some difficulties, perhaps, over monopolies in public ownership. But those are matters which can be argued about, and were argued about, within the EFTA framework. But the EEC has the bureaucratic


Commission, which is in complete contrast to the organisation in EFTA. It reminded me of the arguments we used to have in the Liverpool Trades Council Labour Party. Some of the youngsters in it used to say, "If only our bureaucracy would not do this, that or the other." I thought one day, "Who is our bureaucracy?" It consisted of a full-time paid secretary and two girls in an office. That was about the set-up in EFTA. It did not have the vast bureaucratic organisation that there is in Brussels.
Anyone who thinks that it does not exist should go there for a weekend and look at the bureaucratic set-up of the Commission, which is a very powerful organisation. Anyone who suggests that there is no limitation on our sovereignty has only to look at the Commission's decisions, which percolate through and become imposed on the countries belonging to the EEC. [Interruption.] I do not want to enter into argument with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). Every time he was on the Front Bench I interrupted him, because he always said something with which I totally disagreed. Now we are the same level we can interrupt each other, but in a friendly way.
6.45 p.m.
The Amendment is eminently sensible, and the Committee should support it. If the EFTA set-up is destroyed, it is no good saying that we must continue with the alliances, as one hon. Member suggested. If we enter the Common Market we cannot do so. They will fall apart, because we are establishing an entirely new framework and situation. If we go in we should do so with the other people who have been part and parcel of our free trade area. That is a safeguard both for their interests and ours.
Our association with Ireland is very close, whether we like it or not. I have heard it suggested that a good thing to do with Ireland would be push it out into the Atlantic and forget about it. But that is impossible. We are tied economically and politically to Ireland, and it is tied to us. Therefore, we must be very closely associated with any decisions it takes.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, who has returned to the Chamber, was not here when I began. I felt that I had to get the record straight by replying to some of his points about the Council of Europe and the EFTA parliamentarians, and saying what my personal experience was compared with his. As he said, we can give only personal impressions, and mine were somewhat different to his. I hope that the Committee will accept this very sensible Amendment.

Mr. Marten: Rather like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I entered the Chamber with no intention of speaking on the Amendment, unless I felt that I should. I came to listen, learn and assimilate the words of wisdom. But my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) incited me, too.
The hon. Member for Walton spoke about the delegates at the Council of Europe and other places in Europe where they meet. They must have changed since he was there. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who meets and dines with him, as we heard, doubtless follows a tradition of coffee and cognac. He must realise that those delegates, presumably like our own, are all chosen because they are enthusiastic Europeans, and when they get around the banqueting table with their alcohol and so on naturally they all——

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend surely would not wish to make that observation, at any rate in connection with those who represent the EFTA countries which are not coming into the EEC, whose alleged cause those who support the Amendment are supposedly espousing today.

Mr. Marten: Those who go to all these European affairs probably go because they are keen Europeans. I have met quite a number of them in London, and I have found that that theme runs through them all. We can just picture that dinner party, with the delegates all well-wined, all going down the Common Market motorway, as someone said yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman raised a very good point about the difference in staffing


between the Common Market headquarters and the EFTA headquarters. I believe that the staff at EFTA as a whole amounted to 140. We obtained great benefit from EFTA, with the wider home market of its free trade area. All the things that our industrialists want, if only they understood the Common Market, they could obtain through EFTA. But no—they have been sold the pup of the Common Market, they think that they have to go in or they will not have a free trade area, and the price they have to pay is an enormous annual payment plus the staff in Brussels numbering, I believe, over 6,000.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that EFTA succeeded in creating an industrial free trade area more quickly than the Common Market did, although the Common Market had two years' start on EFTA. Does not that show that the pragmatic approach is much more in our national interest than the bureaucratic legalistic approach which we are likely to have to adopt in the Common Market?

Mr. Marten: I entirely agree. What will do this country so much damage, if we enter the Common Market, is being bogged down by yet a further stage or tier of civil servants, whose time seems to be spent in harmonising the shape of milk bottles and quite ridiculous time-wasting exercises like that.
Yesterday, I was talking to a Minister who recounted to me how well everybody got on, but then he said—I do not think that he meant it in any peculiar sense—that everything takes so much longer in the Common Market because, if people disagree, one has to go on and on and reach a compromise. We want action in this country, not words. If everything is to be delayed in that way, the business of the nation will be made much more sluggish. As one hon. Member rightly said, EFTA works like a dream because it does not interfere but gets on with the job. This is what our industrialists ought to have, and, if they understood it, is what they want.
What inspired, or incited, me to comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West—he and I have debated these matters in Derbyshire—was his slightly nonchalant way of saying, "Well, you know,

Sweden, our dear EFTA partner, has a great problem with timber". But timber affects people very much; it is a rural industry in which very many have a direct or indirect interest. Then he said that Switzerland had a problem—I did not quite follow what it was, but I think it had something to do with money. Portugal, he said, had its problems, though he did not list them.
I met the Foreign Minister of Portugal when he was over here recently, and he told me in no uncertain terms of his great anxieties for his country, particularly over textiles, tomato purée and cork, three staple exports from Portugal to this country, and all three fairly simple things the production of which is a highly labour-intensive business. Clearly, if they do not have satisfactory terms, many Portuguese people will be fairly well clobbered.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to understate the Portuguese case.

Mr. Marten: Understate?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, understate. I am sure that the Foreign Minister will have mentioned the question of canned fish. These are important matters. We know that Portugal has these problems, and we discuss them all the time. I did not want an abbreviated list to be left on the record.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Tomato purée.

Mr. Marten: I mentioned that. [An HON. MEMBER: "And fish."] Yes, fish as well. I did not want to delay the House with too long a list. The point is not the list, whether it includes fish or not, but the tone in which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West expressed his, "It does not really matter" attitude towards the Portuguese or whoever it may be who does not obtain fair terms. I do not wish to be thought over-critical, and perhaps my hon. Friend did not mean it, but he gave that impression.
What concerns me is that we in Britain are a big country, and, relatively, a very big country in EFTA. It goes against the grain with me to feel that we are letting down any of our smaller allies and partners in EFTA, just because we are a big country. I do not want to sound


priggish—I probably am, but I do not want to sound it—but I was brought up in the belief that, if one had any position of privilege above others, the first people one thought of were those below one, before thinking of oneself. My hon. Friend had a gallant record in the army, and he will recall that, when he was an officer and went on exercises or operations, the rule was that one never, as it were, went to bed until one was certain that one's troops, at whatever rank, had had their meal and were, so to speak, tucked up in bed. Only after that did the officer go to bed. I was not in the navy, but I believe that, if a ship is going down, the captain is the last person to leave the bridge.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) put it very well when he said that the attitude which we are asked to adopt is, "Pull up the gangway. I'm all right, Jack". That expresses what I feel, too, and against that background—whatever knee-slapping may go on or however tiresome I may be thought—my attitude is quite simple: I do not want to feel that our country, of which I am enormously proud, will let these others down when, in truth, it need not.
I felt that the same attitude showed in our treatment of the Commonwealth. I must not go out of order here, but New Zealand questions gave one illustration—I felt that at the time—and the same applied to the Lancaster House agreement and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Time will tell who was right there.
When Mr. Pompidou made his broadcast, to which I referred earlier, he said in his appeal to the French people that, if they all voted "Oui" in the referendum, the countries of the Common Market would become a privileged group of nations. I can only say that that rather turned my stomach over.
I do not like that sort of attitude. It may be old-fashioned of me, but I still like to feel that there is nothing wrong in being old-fashioned if one is right. Perhaps it has something to do with the way we are now moving towards Europeanism. Perhaps the European "ism", the European way of life, is that one does that sort of thing. That is all I can think of, because there are hon. Friends of

mine whom I greatly respect as great English gentlemen of the traditional type who seem to go in for it. It must be the effect of all the dinners and so on at those various councils. I do not quite know what it is, but I know how they have changed in the last ten years. Ten years ago, the Tory Party stood as the great Commonwealth party. I remember it before the war, too, when I was a "junior Imperial". Time will tell what happens to the Commonwealth if we ever join the Common Market.
I come to the second part of the Amendment and the question of our co-applicants. The Norwegians are to have their referendum on 24th September, and they will require three-quarters of their Members of Parliament to vote positively in favour of going in. I think that it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) who seemed to think that they would get that vote and their referendum. I do not know how well—apart from the dinner-table—he knows Norway, but I go there quite a lot. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap."] In fact, it is pretty expensive. I go to Norway quite a lot, and I meet the people there. I go up the coast and meet the fishermen. I go into the mountains and meet the farmers. I think it quite possible that Norway will not approve, and, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, rightly said, if Norway does not, Denmark, which is to have a referendum two weeks later, in all probability will not, either. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) pointed out, if Norway and Denmark do not go in, we shall have to look again at the Treaty of Accession, because quite a lot of things will have to be altered.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) referred to the Nordic Agreement as being on ice. If these Scandinavian countries do not go in, it is there to be taken out of the refrigerator. It will be revived, and what worries me is that it might well form part of a neutralist bloc in the North, on the northern flank of NATO. In terms of defence, it could be very serious if we let these two countries go. The Amendment would prohibit that happening because we would not let them go. We would not go into the Common Market if they did not. In terms of


defence alone the Amendment would be a valuable safeguard.
Throughout this debate we seem to be talking in a haunted Chamber—a Chamber practically empty, except that since we have been making a few remarks about pro-Marketeers I am glad to see that they are coming in again. One might think, indeed, that we were talking again about a House of Lords reform Bill in a haunted Chamber, a Bill which will never come about.
Next month, the Italian General Election takes place. One can see from the opinion polls what might be the result. The Daily Telegraph, that arch-exponent of Common Marketism, said in a recent leader that if the Communists got back as the majority party—not necessarily with an overall majority—and join with the Left-wing Socialists, forming a united front Left-wing Communist dominated Government, that will be the end of the Common Market. It could happen. That is why we are debating this issue in a haunted Chamber.
If—or, rather, when—we do not go in, what will happen? The Amendment refers to free trade areas. That is what we know we shall get. I do not believe that the people in the Common Market are such narrow, inward-looking people as some of my anti-Market friends say. They do not want to sit behind their tariff barriers; they want to break them down. They want a wider home market, as we do, and we shall therefore have a wider free trade area with the Common Market if we do not go in. We all know this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and I went over there to talk to the Commissioners. They, I am sure, do not tell lies or try to mislead us. We asked, "If or when we do not join, what will you do?" The answer clearly came through. They agreed that there would be a slight hiccupping and that some tears would be shed by certain people, but that we would then move towards a free trade area, which is what the non-applicants are getting.
The same thing is happening with the OECD. It is moving towards a study of free trade. The same movement can be detected in the GATT and the United States. In the United States, there has

been the Williams Commission Report to the President on trade policy. The whole emphasis is on wider free trade. That is exactly the case of those who oppose the Common Market.
I hope that after this perhaps slightly irrelevant speech the Government will accept the Amendment, which is moderate and sensible. I do not quite agree with the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland but I shall vote for the Amendment on the assumption that if it is accepted we can scrub out the Republic of Ireland. I hope that the Government will accept it and not just turn it down.
Last night, I got a nasty feeling when Amendment No. 200, a good and sensible Amendment for which I voted, was rejected by the Government without good reason. It was a plain and straight forward Amendment. I think that the only reason the Government opposed it was that, if there is an Amendment to the Bill in Committee, there will have to be a Report stage, which they do not want. This begins to worry me. Apparently it is this Bill or nothing at all.

Mr. Michael Foot: I hope that we shall be able to settle that matter simply when we come to the question of Ireland. We shall have to change the provisions in the Bill which refer to Northern Ireland because there has been a change in the constitutional position in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Government will be bringing forward an Amendment to deal with it. It is a shocking suggestion to make that the Government are in any way attempting to avoid a Report stage. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be only too eager to repudiate that charge.

Mr. Marten: I will accept the hon. Gentleman's rebuke with good grace. Of course we must have an Amendment of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland. If we are to have a Report stage, let us start accepting sensible Amendments. Let us also accept Amendment No. 200 on Report.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Rippon: We have had a very good debate and it is right that the Committee should take the opportunity, as I wish to do, to reiterate our concern about our EFTA partners and our interest in


the success of the negotiations they are carrying on in relation to their own circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was able to agree on just one matter with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I am in the same position. I warmly subscribe, as I am sure do all hon. Members, to the tribute they both paid to the efficiency and effectiveness of EFTA and in particular to the Secretary-General and his staff. I assure the Committee that the spirit of co-operation which has always existed still exists as we continue to work and consult together.
There is no question of our deserting, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, our EFTA friends. There is no question that we are letting them down. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West were able to speak from their experience of their contacts with representatives of the EFTA countries in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. It may be that the experience of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was, as he said, different. These are personal matters. From my experience, there is and always has been the closest possible understanding though out these negotiations not only at Government level but also on the parliamentary level.
Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) to the so-called London Declaration. It is important that it should be understood that, before the House of Commons approved the original application to join the Communities in May, 1967, agreement had been reached with the EFTA countries about the basis upon which the negotiations were to proceed. The then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said:
The EFTA countries accept as fully as we do that the London Declaration is no longer appropriate to the position today".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1643.]
All along we have acted in concert.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, not only as member of the Cabinet at that time but as President of the Board of Trade, must have been aware of the

nature of the negotiations. Sometimes perhaps it can be said that members of a Cabinet may not follow every detail. No one doubts that the right hon. Gentleman always had doubts about this and expressed them at an early stage. I would not have thought that there was any doubt that there had been consultation and that it had been agreed that we would proceed with our negotiations and they would proceed with theirs.

Mr. Jay: What I am aware of is that although it is true that agreement was reached, some of our EFTA partners were unwilling to reach it and did so only very reluctantly.

Mr. Rippon: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. No doubt he exercised his considerable powers of persuasion upon them to accept that it was in their interests as well as ours that the application for which he voted should proceed. One does not want to debate these matters because the right hon. Gentleman has always spoken with great sincerity and there is no doubt about the position that he holds and the anxieties that he feels.
Before making some general observations about the way in which our negotiations had been proceeding in concert with our EFTA partners, I ought to address some words to the Amendments and to the reasons why in the Government's view the Committee would be wrong to accept them. In my submission it would not be right for our decision to rest on the decision of other States, still to be made under their constitutional processes. Secondly, it would be wrong to prejudge in any way the result of negotiations still in progress.
This Amendment covers two distinct and separate matters. The common denominator is the intention to impose conditions on our ratification of our Treaty of Accession. The first condition is that Denmark, Norway and the Republic of Ireland—not, as has been pointed out, a member of EFTA—should also ratify. The Treaty is based on the principle that all acceding countries will duly ratify so that the enlarged Community of Ten will be constituted as of 1st January, 1973. The Treaty is quite specific that if any acceding country or countries fails to ratify by the deadline,


then the Treaty nevertheless enters into force for those which have done so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull drew attention to the express provision in that respect which will be found in Article 2 of the Treaty.
The objection to the Amendment is fundamental. It seeks to tie our accession in a way in which we would not wish to be tied and in which it would not be right for us to be tied. A decision of this Committee and of the House would be made subject to and dependent upon a decision not yet made by the authorities of the other acceding States. It would introduce a completely new element into the decisions which are to be taken by our acceding partners in accordance with their constitutional processes, and that would be wrong. It would be wrong from their point of view as well as from ours.
It is up to each country to decide its own policy. We have stated ours and other countries have stated theirs, and the Amendment would cut across that. It is therefore quite unacceptable. By complete agreement between all of us, whether we are seeking full membership or associate membership, for the various reasons put forward, we have acted in concert and we have been in close consultation all along. We have agreed that it is up to each country to make its own case in its own way.
7.15 p.m.
The second condition is that industrial free trade between the EFTA acceding and non-acceding countries should be maintained. As the Committee knows, formal negotiations are currently taking place to determine the detailed trading arrangements between the Community and the non-acceding EFTA countries after enlargement. We have had some previous discussions, not very long, about this. We had a discussion on 8th March in Committee when I was able to say:
It is right and proper that hon. Members should be concerned about our relations with EFTA. Right from the outset we have been concerned about these. We have been in close consultation not only with our fellow applicant countries but also with the non-applicant countries which have been seeking various forms, of association. I have answered many questions about this matter in the House, and I recently referred the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins)
—who spoke again this afternoon—

to the communiqué that we issued on 11th November, in which general satisfaction was expressed by all the Ministers present on the progress of the negotiations.
That does not square with the allegation that we are letting our friends down. I went on to say:
The non-applicant countries are reaching a fairly critical stage in their negotiations. We are still in constant touch. These countries are carrying on negotiations in their own way in the light of the mandate issued by the Community which had regard to the views that we expressed as EFTA members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1608.]
I can say that we have discussed this matter to a large extent and can only reiterate what I have already said. I will give the Committee a progress report on the current state of the negotiations. As hon. Members will be aware, the Commission has now completed the first stage of its negotiations with each of the non-candidate members of EFTA and has submitted further proposals to the Council of Ministers to enable the negotiations to proceed. In accordance with the consultative procedure agreed between the Community and the acceding States, we have expressed our views about these proposals to the Community. We did not engage directly in negotiations because we are not full members, but we were consulted about the mandate. We have been closely in touch as observers with the work of the Article 113 Committee and were very much concerned about the sort of matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) raised in connection with the Portuguese negotiations.
While it is our hope that the final agreement will cover all industrial goods it would not be right to make our accession to the European Community conditional upon the outcome of negotiations between the Community and the other countries concerned. They have always understood that. They have their own negotiations, we have ours. We have our reservations about the difficulties whether with regard to timber or whatever. We have continually reiterated the importance we attach to the maintenance of what we have built up in EFTA in terms of industrial free trade.
We have argued that the number of sensitive matters could be reduced to a minimum. In the course of the negotiations the original mandate has been discussed, new suggestions have been made


by the Commission and negotiations are following a normal pattern. There are certain technical difficulties about rules of origin, accumulation and certain difficulties of definition as to what constitute industrial or agricultural goods. The Community has a special understanding of the problems which arise with Portugal, for example, with regard to tomato purée which can be regarded as agricultural or industrial produce according to what definition is adopted. Such matters are being sorted out in a sensible way, with complete understanding on our part of what our EFTA partners are seeking.
Hon. Members will be aware that at the last Ministerial EFTA meeting in Geneva on 4th November I reaffirmed that in the United Kingdom there was no change in the position which had been repeatedly stated in various communiqués. We have consistently emphasised, as I have told the Committee, the strong interest we have in safeguarding the free trade which has been established between the EFTA countries. We recognise the need for special arrangements in some sectors and want to keep sensitive items to the minimum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West emphasised how important it was for us to keep the closest touch with the EFTA countries. I entirely agree with him, and since November, quite apart from the frequent exchanges of views at official level between ourselves and all the EFTA non-candidate countries, in London, in the EFTA capitals, in Brussels, in Geneva, I myself have had talks with the Foreign Ministers or Ministers of External Trade of five of the six non-candidate countries. Mr. Wickman, the Swedish Foreign Minister, called on me on 15th December last year; Dr. Kirschläger, the Austrian Foreign Minister, called on 17th December; M. Graber, the Swiss Foreign Minister, called on 23rd February; Dr. Patricio, the Portuguese Foreign Minister, called on 8th March; and, most recently, Mr. Linnamo, the Finnish Minister of Commerce and External Trade, called on 29th March.
I mention this to show how continuous consultation is between us——

Mr. Heffer: What did they say?

Mr. Rippon: —and we have discussed, confidentially, the progress of negotiations. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that they were extremely useful conversations, and I think there is complete understanding between us on the nature of the problems which have to be dealt with. I have undertaken to give United Kingdom support, so far as it is within our power, to our friends.

Mr. Marten: I am a little anxious at the rather soothing voice in which my right hon. and learned Friend has spoken in the last moment or two—and it is very nice, too; and he has told us how he has been in touch with all those people and how he knows exactly what their problems are. But if they do not achieve what is the basic necessity for them, what is then the position?

Mr. Rippon: Negotiations are progressing satisfactorily and we have no real reason to suppose we shall not achieve what is the objective of all of us, not only in relation to our own ratification procedures but in relation to those of the other candidate countries, and also with satisfactory association agreements for the non-candidate countries. I may say that we shall behaving further discussions about this at the next EFTA Ministerial meeting at the beginning of May. I am not in a position, obviously, to deal with the details of other countries' negotiations. It would be quite improper for me to do that. They keep us informed how things are progressing. I think that that is far as one can go.
I made those points because I wanted to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West that there is no truth in any suggestion that we were not keeping one another properly informed, or not working together. This is the background, a necessary background, to the debate on the Amendment, even if it is not strictly related to the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman paints his idyllic picture, which bears no relation to the things which have actually happened, he has not answered one pertinent question which was put to him. Suppose an applicant country does not ratify the Treaty—Norway, perhaps—is there any


assurance that that country would automatically get the benefit of the industrial free trade we have been discussing? We have been told that if there is no such assurance such a country would be left in the lurch, and many would feel it to be let down. Is there no assurance on that?

Mr. Rippon: Obviously the policy of the Governments of the three acceding countries concerned is to obtain entry into the Community. They are going through their ratification procedures. If they should fail to enter the Community for any reason, it will be up to them to consider what their policies will be. They have their own constitutional procedures to determine what they want to do, just as we determine what we want to do. If they fail, they will have to come forward with new policies and ideas, and there is no reason to suppose that we would not deal with these matters as they arose, but they are extremely hypothetical questions at the present time, and it would be out of place for me to suggest what other countries should do in the event of certain difficulties arising in relation either to their negotiations or to the ratification of the agreements.

Mr. Jay: It is no part of the agreement being made between the Community and the non-applicant countries that if one applicant decides not to ratify they would automatically become part of the agreement. There is no assurance on that?

Mr. Rippon: I think it has to be understood that each country must be allowed to continue its own negotiations in its own way and to determine its own policy in its own way. The House of Commons would not tie its own decisions to actions which might or might not be taken in certain hypothetical circumstances by the Governments and peoples of other countries.

Mr. Shore: I think: we have had a rather characteristic performance by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think we have listened to what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) described as one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's more soothing speeches, in which we have been told that he has been in touch with everyone, in which he avoided dealing with sub-

stantial matters which were raised in the debate, and in which he was talking about the end, as he sees it, of the EFTA which has played a quite considerable part in our trading prosperity during this past decade.
With the peoples of those countries, with whom we have considerable bonds, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt rather as though he, or we as a nation, had no obligation of any kind to them. Then, when at last he was confronted with a specific question, he did his best to dodge it altogether. If I interpreted his words correctly he was saying "Well, this is their problem". That is a very reasonable inference that we can draw from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about his attitude towards any EFFA country which is unable to negotiate satisfactorily with the Six.
I have a few things to say in addition to this, but I would begin with a tribute, which I think is deserved, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), for I think he has laid out this matter very helpfully for us. The Committee will agree that he is in many ways uniquely qualified to talk about EFTA. Not only in terms of his own period at the Board of Trade but earlier, he has had a long connection and concern with our trading relations with the countries concerned.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend dealt at the beginning of his speech with one of the myths about EFTA, a myth which has been rather fostered—I do not necessarily say by the Government—by people who are over-keen on joining Europe, the myth that EFTA was, as it were, in a state approaching disillusion, with all its members restlessly concerned to get out and about to begin separate negotiations with the Common Market. Of course that is not true; it is not true at all. With the one possible exception of Austria, which, as we know, has a very special economic, geographical and political relationship with neighbouring Germany, Austria which, probably, of all the countries is the least able to enter into any strong association with the Common Market—with the exception of Austria—no country in EFTA would even have contemplated negotiations if Britain herself had not decided to embark on this course.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the chair]

[MR. SHORE.]

7.30 p.m.

Why does EFTA exist? EFTA is a group of European countries which were eligible under the terms of the Rome Treaty in 1956 or 1957 when the original negotiations took place to have become members of the EEC if they had felt that that form of European association served their interests as well as the arrangements of the Six served the interests of the existing member States. They did not take part in the Messina Conference any more than we did.

I wonder what are the underlying attitudes of those countries. I do not pretend to be able to summarise the views of all the EFTA countries, but one point which is fairly obvious is that the EFTA countries, with the exception of Austria and to some extent Switzerland, are, like Britain, on the periphery geographically of the Continent of Europe, and are aware of the danger to them and their economic life of the strong pull of the heart areas of Western Europe. They fear that the magnetism of the great continental industry and population centres will tug at their people and at their trade and industry. They all have, therefore, a built-in regional problem. Because they are peripheral countries they have, like us, worked out trade patterns which are not continental but global. Their trade ranges freely not just with the Six but much more widely, with each other to some extent since EFTA was formed, and also with the United States, Canada and other trading nations.

We are not talking about something which is of only small concern to us. The proportion of Britain's exports—and imports are roughly the same—that go to the EFTA countries is about 15 per cent. compared with exports to the Common Market as a whole of about 21 per cent. If we include Ireland, with which we have had a satisfactory and developing free trade area agreement in recent years, our trade in total with the EFTA countries and Ireland is not far short of our total trade with the Common Market countries.

It is wrong to treat lightly our future relationship with the EFTA countries or

the advantage to us of access to their markets. Of course, it works both ways. Their trade with us is an important factor in the economic life of the EFTA countries. It would be damaging to us and to them if, as a result of the Common Market negotiations, the EFTA association was split, with some members continuing to enjoy free trade and others facing the re-emergence of the tariff barriers of the Common Market, the common external tariff which if we join we are pledged to adopt.

It is obviously desirable for us to avoid that situation, and it is, therefore, sensible for us to seek, as we do in the Amendment, to ensure that our entry to the Common Market should not be finally agreed unless and until the other applicant countries have agreed on entry and the non-applicant EFTA countries have achieved satisfactory and alternative trading arrangements.

Whether from the start we should have maintained a stronger pledge to all the EFTA countries such as was contained originally in the London Declaration to which my right hon. Friend referred is more arguable. There is something in the view that to adopt as strong a pledge as that is to surrender a great deal of necessary bargaining flexibility. Having said that, I do not want anyone to think that we should not have expressed great and genuine concern for their interests and their position. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. Member for Banbury that we have a special obligation to the EFTA countries. We are the big member country: EFTA could not have been formed without Britain; and for Britain to draw out and pursue her own interests and not at the same time take sufficient care of the economic interests of the other EFTA countries would be behaviour which no hon. Members would support. While it is one thing in advance of negotiations to have made a total commitment not to go in unless all the other members are satisfied, it is another thing to do what the Amendment seeks to do; that is, to give a real assurance to EFTA countries that they will not in the end be ditched.

There have been certain episodes in the last few months which must have been very worrying to EFTA countries. We


all recall the negotiations for satisfactory arrangements for the fishing industry, which is particularly important to Norway. It did not help that Britain came to an agreement with the Six which was unsatisfactory for us and also put the Norwegians in a difficult position and forced them to accept terms which they would not otherwise have adopted.

The announcement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in November, 1971, at the last EFTA Council meeting that Britain was giving notice to quit EFTA was an unnecessarily premature announcement. I cannot imagine what purpose he thought it served other than lo put pressure on the EFTA countries——

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) will find that an announcement was made to the House explaining the circumstances. The difficulty is that we cannot be legally and formally at the same time members of both the EEC and the EFTA and that the EFTA treaty requires a year's notice. This is fully understood by everybody concerned. It certainly was not done for the motive that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Shore: I am glad to hear that. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we were the first to make this announcement, and it would have been much better for everyone concerned for an agreed announcement to have been made by the applicant countries if the year's notice was as important as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. If notice has to be given, then this must be done.
There is another matter which should be considered. It is dangerous to assume that the results of the negotiations of the EFTA applicants and also of the non-applicant countries will be successfully achieved. We do not yet know that, and, unlike the people of this country—we discussed this matter in Committee yesterday—the people of Denmark, Norway and Ireland will have an opportunity in the autumn to decide the question of entry. In Norway this will be decided by a consultative referendum and in Denmark by a binding referendum. Additionally, in Norway there has to be a two-thirds' or three-quarters' majority, depending on how it is calculated. In

Denmark the majority required is still higher—namely, five-sixths.
If we contemplate the majority required in those two countries and, in addition, the requirements of their referenda, it is unwise to assume that either or both of those countries will be in a position to join. They are both seeking this act of assent, and we cannot yet know whether it will be obtained.
I shall not weary the House with quotations from opinion polls, and so on, but in Norway and Denmark there are strong tides of opinion against entry. It is noticeable that the Norwegians and the Danes have been to some extent pacing each other as to who should be the first to submit to a referendum. The Norwegians have been first and the Danes are now to follow them.
I have already said that it is dangerous to assume that the applicant countries will join or will be in a position to join. We must also be careful about assuming that we shall join. I certainly do not make this assumption, and anybody in Europe will be unwise to do so until this Bill has gone through—if it goes through—and certainly not before any ratification of the decision has been obtained from the people of this country. It is important that the candidate countries should maintain the closest touch with each other and should try to ensure that none takes a final step before the others are in a position to do so.
One additional point about the Danes so that there should be no doubt about their position. The Danes have made Britain's membership a formal condition of their own membership, which is a very far-reaching commitment. In a speech on this subject on 15th December the Minister in charge of the Danish negotiations said:
The United Kingdom will also have to ratify the formal accession…".
He went on to say that the Danish accession would not be ratified until the United Kingdom had completed her own act of accession. There is no question that the timetables of the different applicant countries which are negotiating are necessarily related to each other.
7.45 p.m.
As for the non-applicant EFTA countries, negotiations are proceeding. They are asking for free trade arrangements


covering industrial goods. We know that there are certain difficulties about paper and timber which have yet to be resolved. The irony of the situation did not elude my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. If the outcome of the negotiations by the non-applicant EFTA countries is as they hope and they can achieve a satisfactory trading arrangement for themselves, they will have gained precisely the prize that eluded the present Home Secretary when he negotiated with Europe in 1958 and 1959.
What has so long been an aim of Britain's trade and European policy has been the removal of trading barriers as far as possible throughout the Continent of Europe. That has been the single theme of Britain's post-war European economic and trading policy. This is what different Governments have attempted to achieve. We wanted to achieve this aim without all the impositions of the common agricultural policy and the additional burden of Community taxation or the rstrictions of Community law. This is exactly the position taken up by the EFTA countries over the economic development of Europe.
There is a wider point which we must not overlook in thinking of EFTA and

its future. If the Government are successful and enter Europe we shall enjoy a greater area of free trade in the European Economic Community, but the alternative which we may well have to seek involves the demolition of trading barriers between the various countries of Europe and the other trading nations of the world.

The Commission and the Ministers of the Six are already committed to an immense set of negotiations beginning next year with the United States, Canada, Japan and other countries. If we are successful we may be faced with the ultimate irony of ending up as a member of the Common Market with all the impositions and disadvantages we have described and then find ourselves going with them into a system which demolishes tariffs in the rest of the trading world. I am convinced that we should not jump too far ahead in any of these assumptions. Therefore, it is prudent, sensible and desirable, not only for us but for our EFTA partners, for the Committee to accept this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 196.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Allen, Scholefield
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dempsey, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Baxter, William
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Biffen, John
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Body, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
John, Brynmor


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Farr, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Kaufman, Gerald


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foot, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Latham, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Leonard, Dick


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil



Hardy, Peter
McElhone, Frank




Mackenzie, Gregor
Paget, R. T.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Mackie, John
Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Maginnis, John E.
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Swain, Thomas


Marsden, F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marten, Neil
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Meacher, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Varley, Eric G


Miller, Dr. M. S
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wainwright, Edwin


Milne, Edward
Roper, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Rose, Paul B.
Wallace, George


Molyneaux, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, Edward
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Russell, Sir Ronald
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Moyle, Roland
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Murray, Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)



O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Orme, Stanley
Small, William
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Oswald, Thomas





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Gilbert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, R. N.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Balniel, Lord
Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Benyon, W.
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gummer, Selwyn
Money, Ernle


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Buchanan-Smith, Aliok(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Churchill, W. S.
Holt, Miss Mary
Osborn, John


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peel, John


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Eden, Sir John
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)







Rost, Peter
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Temple, John M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Soref, Harold
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Spence, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat Christopher
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David
Waddington, David



Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: Before we enter upon this debate, I should draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there has been a fairly good discussion on much of the Clause. I hope, therefore, that observations as are now addressed to the Committee will be carefully related either to new points or strictly to what is in Clause 1.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I make a comment on the remarks which you, Mr. Godman Irvine, have made to the Committee on what should be said in this debate. As I am sure you are aware, we made representations to the Chairman of Ways and Means on the subject of what would be in order in this debate. We have cited to him—I am sure that he has taken into account the representations which we have made—the frequent references which were made in earlier debates by spokesmen on the Government Front Bench, and also by the Chair itself, that, since the result of the ruling of the Chair meant that a host of Amendments which we had put down were excluded from the debate and ruled out of order, it was all the more necessary that we should be able to discuss those matters on Clause stand part.
Those references, which apply to this Bill in a way that they do not apply to many others, must be taken as giving an assurance to the Committee that there should be a wide discussion in this debate. Moreover, Amendments have not been accepted by the Chair for the whole of subsection (1) and up to half way through subsection (2). So on the early part of the Clause any attempts at

amendment which we made were ruled out of order.
I should think that all those questions are specially open for debate in Committee. I hope that, whilst we will take into account what you have said from the Chair, your remarks were not in any way intended to suggest that the debate should be confined. I might add that, in view of the remarkable vote which has just taken place on a very serious Amendment affecting the relationship between this country and the countries of EFTA, which reduced the Government's majority to a derisory figure, nobody can say, not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that full-hearted consent has been given to the Amendment we have just discussed. I should have thought that the Government would be concerned at seeing their majority sink in this way. Therefore, it makes it all the more necessary that the Committee should have the fullest opportunity to debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
It is not our intention—indeed, we understand that it would not be proper—to repeat the points that arose on the particular Amendments which have been fully discussed. However, there is a wide area open for debate and, as I have said, the Government's majority is vanishing. I do not think that on Clause stand part any of us would be surprised if their majority were to vanish altogether. The new political situation, as well as the facts of the Clause itself, means that we must have a full opportunity to debate the whole question.

The Temporary Chairman: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Clause, and, in particular, the earlier part of it. The best course is to start the debate and see how we get on.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: In opening the debate on Clause stand part we are dealing with the essential links which have been forged to connect this country to the existing European Communities. We are, as it were, being coupled up. The analogy of a train comes to mind. Four new coaches are to be coupled to an existing train of six coaches. The means of coupling is this bundle of treaties which are defined and, it turns out, ill-defined in the opening Clause of this Bill.
To pursue the analogy a little further, we have tried to unravel these connecting links, the packages, in order to discover the nature of the coupling. We have not been wholly successful. Our probing has met with somewhat of a blank wall. Specific questions have remained unanswered; they have been deftly side-stepped. It is essential, therefore, that we should press the Government on Clause stand part for at least one specific answer to the perfectly plain questions which have been put to them on the details of this linkage or coupling.
A train has to have an engine. I strongly suspect that the engine is nothing less than the power house of Brussels. I think it is the Commission that pulls the train of six coaches, and perhaps the four that are to be added.
I want to refer to one specific question. I am interested in the legal side. From my point of view, it is the most interesting, although it may not be to all members of the Committee. I refer to the perennial question of the status of this amorphous and shapeless bundle of treaties. We can feel the shape in the package—it is tantalising—but we have not been allowed to do more than peep under the cover to see what is contained there. These are the treaties which are to convey self-executing Community law to us.
The question which I want to put has been put several times by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) put the point very clearly in debate yesterday when he pointed out that the legal status of this bundle of treaties is and remains much in doubt despite the pressure put upon the Government to illuminate this matter.
The treaties are left suspended in a legal limbo, and that will not do. If the treaties are to be legally effectual in this country they must have some competent legal standing, some legal status, and be subsumed under some known legal category. They must belong to some determinate source of the law known to this country. In the end, it comes to this: that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who handles this matter for the Government has denied and disowned with great vehemence in the opening debate of censure on the Chair that there is any attempt in the Bill to introduce the texts of the treaties into our law. He has denied that. What he said about this matter was quite specific—it is on record not once, but several times—that the Bill does not purport to approve the specific texts of the treaty.
If the Bill does not approve of the specific and express texts of the treaties then one has to question their standing and status. It would be well understood and easy to comprehend if the usual practice had been followed as it was with the EFTA Treaty and certain other treaties. We mentioned several of them in previous debates where the texts of the treaties have been annexed to the Act bringing them into effect in this country and, as it were, marrying them to the municipal law of this country.
In the past, the normal process when joining a new international body has been to enact treaty texts as part of the statute law of this country. Sometimes that has not been done, but it has always been done where it has been necessary to ensure that detailed and specific provisions of treaties were effective within the domestic jurisdiction of this country
Statute law is the normal source to which one would look to find the authoritative legal backing of the texts of the treaties, but we are not to get that because of the Amendments that were defeated yesterday. In Amendment No. 40 we asked that the texts of the treaties should be scheduled to the Bill. That is the second best thing to having them embodied in the statutes, but it is at least a well-understood legal mechanism. That suggestion has been rejected, and even the alternative of producing an index of the treaties has been rejected.
If it is not statute law, the only other legal source that could possibly contain these treaties is common law, but surely the Government will not say that the source to which we should look to find the content of this new and Continental system of law, this new legal order from Europe, is in the common law of England, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland for that matter? I am certain that the Government will not suggest that.
That being so, these treaties are left in a legal limbo, and the only way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can rescue them from this legal limbo is with this miserable little Bill. But, look as one may in the Bill, one looks in vain to find words which are apt to convey into the legal context of this country the texts of the treaties, and it seems to me that this is a fatal hiatus.
This is something that the Government have to face. They have to explain how it is that these treaties and their specific texts are somehow to be brought into effect in the law of this country, and it will not do for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us to wait until we get to Clause 2(1). I am sure that when we get to that Clause we shall find the same careful deft side-stepping and that we shall get no nearer to the texts of these treaties than we have so far done. I leave that specific challenge with the Government. The Opposition want to know, as I am sure the Committee does, what is the legal status of the texts of these treaties. We want no dodging. We want a straight answer.
I should now like to pursue a little further the analogy of this European train with its six coaches and the four that are sought to be added because in the "Clause stand part" debate we are entitled to consider the nature of the train that we are joining.
That is a task that we have not yet considered. When we considered the principle of joining the Community, by implication we considered broad matters pertaining to the Community, but in the Clause we are dealing specifically with the thing that constitutes the train, the linkage—the treaties, the couplings—and we are entitled to see what is coupled up. We are entitled to stand back for a moment to see what is contained there.
That is what the Clause invites us to do, because it starts with subsection (1) citing the Act, as it will be, as the European Communities Act, 1972, That is what it is to be called. It is a long time since anyone really suggested that the side note correctly describes the Clause when it says "Short title and interpretation", but perhaps we can go back and remember that there is a short title. I should like to say a few words about that, because it is important to look at this train.
8.15 p.m.
Is it really a European train, or is it just a Western European train? Indeed, after the debate that we have just had on EFTA one is entitled to ask whether it is a Western European train. Is it not selective? Is it not leaving out our EFTA partners who ought to come in if it is to be a Western European train, and, therefore, a Western European Community?
I jib at the word "European" for a start. What kind of Europe are we creating in Clause 1? What couplings are we linking up to and what, by implication are we rejecting? One can pursue this a little further because this is a selective Western European grouping, and, therefore, not European. Europe is a much wider continent than simply the Western European peninsula. Although it starts there it stretches at least to the Urals, and one has to consider the whole extent of Europe.
If one is considering that it is desirable to create a European Community one should surely, in principle, have an organisation that can achieve that end result. If when one examines the bones, the structure, of the Community one finds that they are inconsistent with this plendid objective, one begins to doubt whether the Bill is a genuinely European Bill; whether it is connecting us into a Community that can fairly be called a European Community.
This has two aspects. The one on which I want to dwell for a short time is the temptation that is bound to exist to overlook one matter. One sees signs of this not only in the provisions of the articles of the Treaty of Rome but also in the development of the Community in its trading and in its special relationships with tropical countries. It is clear that


the Community is already finding that for many purposes the borders of Europe are not finally defined, not clearly described, on its southern aspect. That is where the southern part of Europe is bounded by the Mediterranean, and that area since classical times has in many respects been a unit.
Already there are signs that the true southern border of the Common Market—and that is a better term to use as it describes more accurately what the association is that we are joining—in common sense terms and in terms of existing relationships is beginning to be the North African coast, Asia Minor, Israel, Egypt and Turkey. That is the natural boundary of the trading area which is the Common Market.
One is already encroaching upon Africa. When one looks at the wider trading relationship which Britain is leaving by joining the Common Market, it becomes clear that many of the African States—and these were mentioned in the previous debate—have been brought into the network of the Common Market by dint of special trading relationships under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. Therefore, not only is the European claim of this Community suspect, but its practical growth is in another direction and is reminiscent of the older spread of European imperialism towards the underdeveloped tropical areas of the world.
I would also point out—and I hope to develop this a little further—that calling this community the Common Market is more accurate in many respects because enshrined in it is the concept of free competition in a free market economy. I do not want to be unfair. It is true that there are provisions in the Treaty of Rome which moderate the stark harshness of a free market economy, but I do not think anyone—and I am sure the Committee will be fair-minded about this—on looking at the Treaty of Rome as a whole, on looking at the Coal and Steel Treaty and the Euratom Treaty as a whole, can doubt that the basic concept of a free market economy within that customs union is clearly enshrined. That is the establishment of the European future which the Community offers us.
I underline this point by drawing attention to the provisions of Article 3, one of the first and one of the most important

of the preliminary set of articles which outline the principles in Part One of the Treaty of Rome. The paragraphs of Article 3 to which I particularly refer are (a), (b), (c), (f) and (h). There are six other paragraphs which I shall not mention at this stage. The five to which I refer set the tone. They are the essential principles on which the Market is based, and the others are either ancillary or have the moderating effects to which I referred.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am not a custodian of party orthodoxy on this or any other matter. However, I am bound to ask my hon. and learned Friend, when he says that he does not want to join, whether he is aware that it is the official policy of the Labour Party, for which he is speaking, to join the Community if the right terms can be obtained? Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Murray: I accept that, but the debate is concerned with a different matter. I was seeking to convince my right hon. Friend of this, and I was endeavouring to be fair. We are dealing not with unbridled capitalism in the Community but with a form of constitutional capitalism; the constitutional protections of this Community are not good enough, and that is one of the faults in the terms.

Mr. Jay: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is official policy of the Labour Party not to join the Common Market unless the terms are satisfactory?

Mr. Murray: That is a satisfactory complement to the answer I have given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever).
Paragraph (a) of Article 3 provides for
the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect".
Paragraph (b) provides for
the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries".
Paragraph (c) provides for
the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital".


Paragraph (f) provides for
the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted".
Paragraph (h) provides for
the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market".
That type of orthodox statement of the aims of a constitutionally controlled capitalist economy, that sort of arrangement, is bound sooner or later to come into conflict, economic or otherwise, with the kind of State-planned socialism characteristic of the Eastern bloc.
There is no escape from that, and we must face the fact that one of the tensions which exist—it can be creative but it is dangerous as well—in this sphere is implicit in the fact that one of the protocols of the Treaty of Rome underwrites, by implication or expressly, the status of Berlin as requiring the support and protection of the free world.
These are political and not economic terms, and they have wide implications. Another aspect contained in the protocols is the special arrangements which exist for international German trade, crossing the sensitive boundaries between the Eastern economic bloc and the Community, which I call the Common Market.
This is the first time that we have had a chance of looking at the text of the Treaty of Rome. Up to now we have been given it in a sort of package. It is right, therefore, that we should look at the other Communities because this so far unprobed part of Clause 1(2) deals with the definition of "the Communities", which means the EEC, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Correspondingly, the treaties with which we are concerned are the Treaty of Rome, the Coal and Steel Treaty and the Atomic Energy Treaty. We are also concerned with the Treaty of Accession and the ancillary agreements which contrive to take this country into the Common Market.
When one looks at the three original Communities—the European Community, the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom—one finds that they were set up with a common structure; a Commission, or High Authority

in respect of Euratom, a Council, an Assembly and a Court of Justice.
It is equally true to say that the Community established by the Treaty of Rome—the "Main Community" is a fair way of putting it—developed out of the experience of the Coal and Steel Community. That was the pilot Community, and it was perhaps in some respects more supranational than the main Community which has come into existence.
When one looks at the Coal and Steel Community—I can refer to it at this stage only in passing; we shall probe it later because many aspects of it need to be probed—it is clear that the economic objective of setting up a free market economy was right at the heart of the matter. Indeed, one can go further and say that the setting in which the Coal and Steel Community was created is now almost outdated. There is a slightly Victorian look about it because the main sources of power in the 'fifties, from the point of view of economic power and defence, were iron, coal and steel.
Much of the motivation that set up the Coal and Steel Community was the cold war and the threat to Western Europe which was thought to be posed by the power of the Soviet Union during that period. Now, however, there is something anomalous about the position in that Western Europe is discovering great new sources of natural gas and oil. In other words, it is surprising to find so much specialised stress being laid on these rather old sources of raw materials for industry.
In the same light, there is a curious over-specialisation, perhaps, about the Euratom Treaty which was born in quite different circumstances, in the euphoria which existed when peaceful uses of atomic power were first discovered. People thought then that this would be a great new source of power, replacing coal and steel, the next step beyond them. That has turned out to be yet another dream, another illusion, and the Community is saddled with this outdated organisation—one can hardly call it "Victorian". We know that integration has been provided for and that the otiose organs of these communities have been combined and that there will be a single Community. On these three aspects no doubt very considerable development would have to take place


in future, but we are joining a train which looks already faintly outdated; not a modern, streamlined engine.
Have not we, the four applicant countries which will enlarge the Community by 40 per cent.—we shall add four new members to six to make up 10—lost a great opportunity to try to modernise the Community? Would not the Community have welcomed a bit of initiative to try to get the real sources of power that matter today brought into the forefront of things instead of leaving it a Coal and Steel Community? That criticism or comment can be echoed in many other spheres.
I now mention three other aspects of the common structure of the Community.

Mr. James Dempsey: We are all greatly interested in my hon. and learned Friend's first-class speech, in which he has quoted treaty after treaty, and discussed how we shall be affected if we enter the EEC. Would he address his mind to another treaty, which I thought he would mention at some time or other; namely, the Treaty of Union? In that treaty between Scotland and England certain obligations were undertaken towards Scotland. It would be interesting to know to what extent some of those obligations will be eliminated and others eroded. For example, we had the text of our law in Scotland. Will that be superseded by Community law?

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Murray: That is an invitation which I must resist. If my reading of the Amendments to come is correct, we shall have an opportunity to discuss that in detail later. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to leave it until then. It is a matter of great interest to me.
I have three points which I wish to point out in considering the structure of these three communities. In each case stress was laid on three characteristics of these organs: independent legal personality, independently financed and politically independent. The independent financing was a different kind of financing. The coal and steel community was self-financing. Obviously the main com-

munity was not, nor was Euratom, which was, of course, a research body. There is an obligation to provide the finance, but no political control. Perhaps the most important factor in political control is that these communities are politically independent. This pattern has been built in from the coal and steel community, through Euratom, to the main Community that now exists.
That poses the next vital point concerning this European train, which is a bit out of date. What is it like institutionally? When one comes to political control, it is obviously grossly out of date. The ideas that we have been developing in our democratic society over the ages, the idea that we must have political answerability where there is responsible power, is an idea which we have had to fight to achieve. The modern concept, certainly in this country and in the Atlantic democracies, is surely not to create independent business organisations—because that is what they are—great giant, international trusts, crossing national boundaries, beyond the control of parliaments. Surely that is the way not of progress but of retrogression. Surely the way of progress is to recognise that in democracy one must have a delicate balance between political control and economic power. Surely the four applicants have lost a golden opportunity of influencing the Community in achieving the correct balance. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) has left the Chamber.
It is essential for us to consider this vital and delicate balance. After all, it is the sort of thing which is not without mention in the Treaty of Rome, because there is a provision in Article 138 which is something that would not come as a surprise to the negotiators on the other side of the Channel. Article 138(3) provides that
The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
The European Parliament has very limited powers. It is really a jumped-up version of the Coal and Steel Assembly. The European Parliament is not much better than that. But if members were directly elected it would begin to create a power of its own and perhaps one could


get the organs of democracy growing in an organic way outwards from there, for financial control at the same time. But what a golden opportunity has been lost. All four applicant countries have splendid traditions of parliamentary democracy. What a splendid opportunity was lost here. One or two of the countries in the Community have splendid traditions of parliamentary democracy. I will not be scathing about the others. What an opportunity this was to strengthen the parliamentary democracy in the Six. They do not have long antecedents of parliamentary democracy in the way that the four applicant countries and one or two of the existing Six have. This was a chance for us to have said when negotiating "The economic terms are all right, but what about a bit of democracy?"
I took the opportunity to visit Brussels before the great vote on 28th October. I welcomed that opportunity. I went there prepared to learn and to see what was good in the Community. I was also prepared to see what was bad. When speaking to the civil servants of the Community who were kind enough to speak to us, I put to them one or two of the questions that I had put to the Government previously about the conditions that they could have sought in order to protect Britain's interests. One of the most interesting points was the idea that if the budgetary conditions imposed for our entry were unduly heavy perhaps an arrangement could have been made with the Community for a general review at a later stage. Those who were speaking to us from the Community said "We would have considered that request sympathetically, but your Government never asked for it."
That is true. Time and again essential matters have been let slide in that way and have not been mentioned. An adequate stand was not taken to ensure that democratic interests and British interests were properly safeguarded.
I come, lastly, to a treaty which might be overlooked—the Treaty of Accession. I mention this partly because one of the factors which interested me when the negotiations were taking place—this is a constituency interest which I declare—was the matter of fisheries. It appeared that this was a matter on which the Govern-

ment could get terms which at least gave some promise for the future.
I will not make any personal attack on anybody here, but the fact is that we were given answer after answer by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was his well-known performance of side stepping rather than answering the specific questions that were put to him continually and persistently about the kind of agreement he was negotiating.
I can use the illustration of the Treaty of Accession not only in regard to the fisheries agreement but also in regard to the problem of the status of these treaties. Article 2 provides:
From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties"—
The Committee will be interested to notice that this is yet another definition of the package; we are now being told about original treaties; that is not mentioned in the Bill—
and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act.
Once again I put the question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What is the status of this Article? This is another text to which there is no express reference in the Bill, although there may be references by implication. Yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South referred to legislation by reference. Perhaps it is not legislation at all. It does not start to have meaning unless what is referred to has some competent and legal status.
That is the question I am putting to the Chancellor of the Duchy, hoping that at least I shall get an answer. What is the status of this? It may be—and some learned academics have actually put this point in articles—that perhaps the object of this treaty—and this is in the context of the existing Six and not of our application—is to create a European common law. That is an exciting idea which, if people were genuinely interested in creating the right kind of Community with Europe with the tradition of the common law behind it, could have been achieved. But if that is the idea and if we are to get a new common law added to the common law of England and Scotland, and a new source of law, not the statute law of this Parliament, but the common


law of Europe and the Community—legislation by prerogative was the phrase coined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—where is its legal birth certificate? I find it nowhere in the Bill.
For the reasons I have outlined, and I could go on very much longer on this topic, it seems to me that on this side of the Committee we are entirely justified in inviting the Committee to oppose the Clause and to reject it.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As I have the good fortune to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), I should like to preface my few observations by saying what I am sure the Committee as a whole would echo and reinforce, that the Committee owes him a considerable debt in the course of our proceedings, irrespective of which side of the Chamber we sit, and irrespective of the view we take on the merits of this great controversy. The hon. and learned Gentleman has delved into difficult, complex and technical problems put up by the Bill and has given the Committee the benefit of his knowledge to the advantage of us all and to the advantage of the debates and discussions we have had.
I was minded, in order to show that my good will and encomia have no narrow restrictions, to follow with a genial word of welcome to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) who was seated on his side of the Committee a few minutes ago. But, alas, I am in a sense too late because he is no longer with us. I hope, to use the language of Burke, that he is not merely a transient and embarrassed phantom—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says he will be back, and I hope that this is so. I said earlier when we were debating this Clause in Committee, when I welcomed the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) on his maiden appearance in the Committee, that I hoped that we should have more pro-Market contributions and attendance from the Opposition side. I hope that we shall have more from that side. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) here anxious to make his contribution, but not even he would claim that there

has been a great flood of pro-Market eloquence and ratiocination from that side of the Chamber on the Bill. When it comes to the Division Lobby, the pro-Market cause will have its triumph——

Mr. Thomas Cox: Only just.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Yes, only just, but no-one could see its triumph in the actual dialectical content. The argument has been nearly all one way and I am bound to say to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham that it will require even more than his return to the Chamber to redress that balance.
I was very interested in everything the hon. and learned Gentleman said, particularly his stimulating observations about what I think he meant to represent as this last chance for expanding and extending the democratic processes within the Community, because there is certainly great need for that.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the European Parliament—[Interruption.] Here returns the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham—no transient and embarrassed phantom he—armed with a library of notes, no doubt the record of all the past proceedings of the Committee, in which we have not had the good fortune to have his contributions to date.
The hon. and learned Gentleman could have added that although the European Parliament is unfortunately a shadowy Assembly, it is not altogether its fault. It has been making representations over a long period to play a more ample, more constructive and more dignified part in the proceedings of the Community. But so far its representations have fallen on deaf ears. We have never had a clear statement of what view the Government take about the rôle which the European Parliament should play. My own position is quite clear. I do not think, and have never thought, that it would be beneficial to this country to enter the Community on the terms of the Treaty of Rome. But if unfortunately, in spite of the balance of argument being all our way, the Lobby fodder verdict is the other way, it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic content of the Community if it is to be tolerable


to people bred in the British democratic way of life.
There are many in the Community who realise this. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a visit to Brussels which he made in October. I visited Brussels somewhat later, and in the conversations I had with some of the Commissioners, they frankly admitted the shortcomings of the European Parliament. I am betraying no confidences, because my discussions with them took place in front of the television cameras, and they are all on the record. I was struck by the frank admission that there was a great deal lacking in the democratic content of the workings of the Community at present. I echo what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about that. If we are in the end members of the Community, that is something on which we should seek to contribute, but it is a condition which it might well have been better for the Government to specify as one of the cardinal aims and requirements of our application for entry rather than being relegated behind those relatively few economic conditions which were prescribed.
We have spent long hours, laborious days and some nights upon the Clause, and it is sad that we are reaching its end—[Interruption.]—not sad that we are reaching its end in that sense, but sad that we are reaching its end without any improvement in it to match the consideration we have collectively, jointly and severally given to the matter.
The Clause, an unhappy Clause, is bad at first glance, and the more it is probed the more unsatisfactory it is seen to be. It contains defects both patent and latent, and none of them has been cured by all the time which we have devoted to its debate. I hope that the reason for that is not any obstinate adherence by Ministers to the text as drafted in order to avoid the necessity for a Report stage, for that would not be the appropriate approach to a Bill of this complexity.
I speak with some experience of legislation in the House, though not, of course, such long experience as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), the Father of the House, and, as a result of that experience—I am sure that you, Mr.

Mallalieu, with your long and distinguished experience, would confirm what I am saying, if you were not sitting in the neutarility of the Chair—I know it to be most unusual for a Bill to be right as drafted the first time. If that be so as the general rule, so much more unlikely is a Bill as complex as this unique Measure to be right first time.
The odds against it being right the first time, whatever the manifold merits of the draftsman, and whatever the assiduity and ingenuity of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is profound—[Laughter.] I thought that I had better say something which was certain to catch my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend sees that I take a good point very quickly.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of the training which my right hon. and learned Friend received——

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. Perhaps, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman resumes his speech, he will remember that we are discussing a certain Clause.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With respect, Mr. Mallalieu, I am not likely to forget it. You will recall that the unfortunate Queen Mary Tudor, known to historians by the infelicitous and pejorative name of "Bloody Mary", said that, when she died, "Calais" would be written on her heart. The Bill, and this Clause, are written on my heart, and I assure you that I am in no danger of forgetting it or its contents.
It would be most unlikely that the Clause would be right as initially drafted. It is the interpretation Clause. It is unusual to spend so much time and to have to take so much trouble with an interpretation Clause. But this is a most unusual interpretation Clause. Usually, interpretation Clauses wear the guise of innocence. Here that is deceptive. The content and effect of the Clause belie its superficial innocence. It is in effect a legislative wolf in sheep's clothing.
I have three main complaints in regard to Clause 1. I summarise them briefly because we have discussed these matters on the various proceedings so far.


My first complaint is as to the specification made in the Clause of existing treaties. Here, the charge against the Clause is one of imprecision. The charge of imprecision is very grave in regard to an interpretation Clause, the whole object of which is clarity and definition. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 catalogue the specific treaties but paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 includes the notorious "portmanteau" provision. Here again I am indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith for this felicitous description of the provision.
All that is necessary under Clause 1 is for an Order in Council under subsection (3) to specify the treaty and its status as conclusively established and binding upon the courts. Of course a certain imprecision, a sort of portmanteau approach in regard to future treaties, although regrettable, might be inevitable. But Schedule 1(7) is dealing with existing treaties and surely in their case precision should be possible and is essential. We have not got it. Of course the Government had the opportunity to improve the drafting in this respect, to give the missing precision to the Bill. But they rejected it in the small hours of this morning. They rejected Amendment No. 202, moved by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins). They rejected even his plea for what one would think was the minimum safeguard of at any rate listing the principal pre-accession treaties in the Bill. I must regretfully say that, in regard to existing treaties, none of the defects of the Clause has been cured, and they are radical indeed.
I pass to my second complaint, which has regard to the treatment by the Clause of future treaties. Here, the complaint is not so much a matter of precision or imprecision as a matter of parliamentary control and the lack of it. Subsection (3) purports to give a measure of Parliamentary control but is wholly insufficient. It should be possible to incorporate new post-accession treaties—that is to say, Community treaties after 22nd January—only by the full statutory process. After all, we have the full statutory process for many less important matters than that. Again, the opportunity was given to incorporate a necessary and welcome improvement in the Bill, and again the opportunity was rejected and the Clause is inevitably the worse for it.
My third complaint is rather different in its nature because it relates to the sin of omission—the omission of matters which should have been specified and written into the Clause for our protection. We had a debate about this a week or two ago when I stressed the desirability of incorporating in the Statute a reference to the Luxembourg Agreement because it is that agreement which has been paraded all along as the universal remedy for all the bureaucratic and supranational ills to which entry to the Community is heir. But it finds no place, and we have no protection against the rigours and rigidity of the treaties specified.
9.0 p.m.
Those are serious defects in an interpretation Clause. They would be serious defects in any interpretation Clause but they are far more serious in this Clause in this Bill because of the connection between Clause 1 and Clause 2. It is, after all, the treaties specified in the Clause which will spawn those regulations and in some cases have already spawned and are continuing to spawn them. Those regulations will be self-executing, as the phrase goes, in Clause 2. That means that they will bind the British people irrespective of Parliament and the courts. It is for that reason that the defects and mischiefs of Clause 1 are not academic, not isolated, not self-contained. They will infect the whole organism created by this Bill and will foster those elements of Clause 2 which are repugnant to the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. I conclude that it is a bad Clause both in form and in content and should be rejected by the Committee.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) because this gives a legal basis from both sides of the Committee for my observations and it enables me to make those observations on a more positive note rather than the interrogative one which I was about to adopt. When a layman deals with an interpretation Clause he feels a little safer if the Clause has already been criticised from a legal point of view on both sides of the Committee. He is then able to embark on his doubts feeling


that they are not merely those of someone who does not understand but the doubts which have been expressed legally on both sides. I can therefore start with a little more confidence.
One of the problems of this Clause is that it contains a totally inadequate definition in subsection 2(4) which says:
For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, 'treaty' includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement.
For reasons which quite properly have never been explained, an Amendment which I sought to move clarifying and expanding this Clause was not selected. No doubt the reasons were quite proper but the Amendment would have removed some of the impression to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. I feel that it is unfortunate that it was not selected. I shall come to what I believe to be the reason for its non-selection. Though it is not proper for me to ask why it was not selected, I think it is in order for me to say why I think it was not selected.
Although I cannot discuss the Amendment I hope that I shall be allowed to say that it sought to include the General Programmes of the Community, as they are recorded in the official journal, as international agreements for the purposes of interpretation of this Clause. It sought to say that the General Programmes which at the moment are excluded, which are not law under the Bill as it is at present worded, should be included as being international agreements for the purposes of the Bill. As at present drafted the Clause does not include those General Programmes. The Clause as drafted has a lacuna. I must not talk about what is not in the Clause, but only what is in it, but I can talk about a gap which is in the Clause, this lacuna, this hole, for this gap will prove to be a very difficult problem for us.
Let me illustrate the problem. As hon. Members know, all Common Market legislation stems from the Treaty of Rome. That is undoubtedly true. That is law. That is an international agreement. There is no doubt about that. Thus hundreds of Directives which have issued from the Council since 1957 are to become part of British law—like that, overnight—with the process of accession.

About this there seems to be no doubt. In some cases of Directives issued by the Council we are given six months after accession to bring the Directives into force. We have ourselves in our own country, to do something, or else such a Directive remains inoperative. It seems that some action has to be taken about that; the mere process of accession is not enough; we are given six months to put our house in order, as it were—although I would say that it is to put our house into disorder, because we are already in order. Under this Bill we are to put our house into disorder, and I think it should be entitled a Bill for worsening the British situation, since it is a Bill to bring our good order down to the disorder which exists in the Common Market countries. As I say, in some cases we are given six months to make ourselves as bad as they are.
An example of these is Directive No. 451 of 29th September, 1970, and another is Directive No. 264 of 1965. These are Directives concerning the obtainment of freedom to establish and freedom to provide services in respect of activities in wholesale trade.
The curious thing, however, is that the Directives do not spring directly from the Treaty of Rome itself. The Treaty of Rome is undoubtedly law, and I believe that the Directives are intended, at any rate, to be law, but those Directives do not spring directly from the Treaty; they spring from the General Programmes which stand between the Directives and the Treaty itself. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy pointed out when I quoted one at an earlier stage, these General Programmes are not themselves legal instruments; they stand between the Treaty and the Directives but are not themselves legal instruments, and under this Clause they do not become British law.
There is the treaty, there are the General Programmes for the abolition of restrictions and then there are the Directives which apply the General Programmes to particular cases. Whereas the treaty and the Directives are law, as the Clause stands the General Programmes which interpret the Treaty and provide authority for application to particular industries are apparently not legal instruments and an Amendment which I


sought to introduce which would have given them legal status was not selected.
I am advised that under British law if what is legally enforceable passes through a stage which is not legally enforceable subsequent statements which purport to be enforceable are not enforceable for they stem from a non-enforceable source. I have been advised that if what is said to be enforceable stems from a non-enforceable source, it is not enforceable. If this is so, the question arises whether any of the Directives of the Council are enforceable in British courts. They do not stem directly from the Treaty, which is enforceable, but from the non-enforceable programmes. The lacuna in the Clause means therefore that none of the Directives is enforceable. I do not know for certain whether this is so, and I bow to legal opinion, but it is a point which is at least arguable and worthy of examination. Were I in charge of the Bill I should want to plug up this hole. I should be unhappy at the possibility of the Directives being unenforceable in the British courts.
It may be that the reason why my Amendment was ruled out of order is that the General Programmes, being no more than statements of aspirations, are regarded as unsuitable to be thought of as treaties and thus international agreements. This difficulty may be insuperable.

Mr. Deakins: That surely cannot be so, since a number of the admitted treaties in the ten volumes of treaties that even the Government accept will have the force of law under Clause 1 are vague and seemingly anticipatory expressions of future international friendship. For instance, the Hague Agreement of December, 1969, is full of marvellous phrases about future European political unity. Although it may be meaningless, there is no question but that it is a treaty under Clause 1(4) and would therefore have the force of law in this country.

Mr. Jenkins: The Treaty is said to be a treaty not only by the Community but it is written into the Bill as being a Treaty. However much wind there may be in it, it still remains a treaty. But nowhere does the EEC say that the

General Programmes are treaties or international agreements. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not say that they are treaties or international agreements. They are a stage in between the Treaty and the Directive and nobody says that they are international agreements. My Amendments which sought to say that they were international agreements or treaties was not selected.
We have this gap which everybody agrees is not law between two pieces of law. If there is a gap under the British law there must be a gap under the Common Market law. The tertiary situation may not be legally enforceable because there is a non-enforceable secondary between the primary and tertiary situations. This question needs to be answered. It may be that the difficulty is insuperable and it is possible that no directive of the Council can have validity in British law until such time as it is re-cast in a form that is enforceable in the British courts.
If I am right, it means that the Bill can be viewed with less apprehension and alarm than we have viewed it up to the present. It means that even if it becomes law, it will be possible successfully to challenge most of the Council's directives in the British courts and fresh legislation to give effect to the directives may have to be carried through the House by the Government. I feel it doubtful that they would get through the House individual legislation to give effect to directives.
9.15 p.m.
One of the objects of presenting this Bill in such a brief form is so that we shall not be able to discuss individual Directives. We shall not be able to show the various forms of harm which will befall industry by discussing the application of each Directive to each industry. If the Government were forced into a position of having to introduce legislation on each industry to show the effect of a directive upon it, I doubt whether they would get any single piece of legislation through the House. There are people on both sides of the Committee who know what will be the consequences upon each industry. The Government have ended by shoving this legislation through Parliament in a short Bill so that we are unable to discuss details. Indeed this is the only way in which the Government are able to get this wretched Bill enacted.

Mr. Marten: This is one of the jokes about the Bill. When the Community law comes to be enforced in our courts, it will be seen to be so vaguely drawn that the British courts in interpreting that law will say, "We cannot interpret this and will throw it out". Therefore, whatever we do in this Parliament in our parliamentary games, and even if we pass this legislation, much of it will be ineffective when tested in the courts.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a big joke—and indeed that applies to much of the Government's legislation, though I do not expect to carry the hon. Gentleman with me on other matters. It remains to be seen whether the consequences of carrying the Bill through Parliament will be that we shall be forced into the bad pattern of Common Market legislation which the Government seem to be determined to thrust us towards. For these reasons I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote against the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". For if the Clause is agreed to, it is so imprecise that the consequences will unsettle the future, even if they cannot be clearly foreseen tonight.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said that the interpretation Clause was concerned with the linkage between carriages of the European train and highlighted the two kinds of objection to the Clause as it stands. There are those who are worried about the livery and internal fitments of the coach, and there are those who do not want to join the train at all and who wish to stick to the stage coach in which they are travelling at the moment. The image of the train shows the linkage of individual packages to create something greater than the individual parts. The hon. and learned Gentleman is one of these who want to improve the arrangements that we are making with the EEC. He has made it clear that he would like us to have arrangements with the Community, but he would like to improve those outlined in Clause 1.
There are those who do not want such an arrangement. One can understand their view, but it is a different view. It is on this that we find the difficulty in Clause 1. The hon. and learned Member

for Leith would have liked to see in Clause 1 references to arrangements which would have improved the EEC itself. He would have liked a great deal more about democratic institutions, and he would have wished them to be written into the Clause. He said that the Clause did not refer to these agreements because, in his mind, the democracy of those agreements was insufficient. However, once the hon. and learned Gentleman says that, he invites us to lay ourselves open to the other group of people who have discussed the Clause and who do not want anything to do with Europe. They do not want any such greater democracy because any greater democracy would demand a greater degree of the giving up of sovereignty, as they would put it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has often posed the dilemma that we have here an institution which is not as democratic as many of us would like it to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have never made any secret of that. We have an institution of this kind, and those of us who would like to see a stronger and more powerful European Parliament are open to attacks from those who do not wish us to join the train. It is the Charybdis of Stepney rather than the Scylla of Leith who stands firmly, almost greyly, as a rock and tells us not to do anything to improve the democracy of Europe and the treaties to which Clause 1 refers because, if we do so, we shall give up in an increasing way decisions over our national life in this country, and that is unacceptable.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend has rather overshot the point on which I wished to comment. However, for the record, let me get one matter straight. My hon. Friend categorised some of us, I suspect including me, as people who did not want anything to do with Europe. Let us be clear. I love Europe. I have French blood in me. I have been all over Europe. All that I hate is the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: There is a kind of lover of whom it can be said that absence makes the heart grow fonder. It is in that category that the love of my hon. Friend always appears to be true. It never reaches the point of action——

Mr. Marten: Oh, it does.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The one thing that my hon. Friend does not want is consummation——

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend should speak for himself.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Many of us look to the joining of the EEC as the consummation of a love that we have had for a long time——

Mr. Milne: Mr. Milne rose——

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I prefer to remain in my amorous mood for a while longer in order to continue to keep to the point. I fear that if I give way to the hon. Gentleman I shall be drawn into one of the byways that he has raised before on this point.
We have here an interpretation Clause which has been designated, rightly, as an interpretation Clause which is more important than many. It is more important because it points directly to an element in the European Community which is of great importance. It is that element which gives to the European Community a life of its own. It enables the European Community to be given powers jointly by those of us who are to be members of it which do not necessarily mean that we have afterwards to go through the form of accepting them individually. It gives us a force and power as a Community which is greater than the individual power of each of the members of that Community.
This is a source of great objection to many hon. Members who do not want us to be in a position to give to our association in Europe a life of its own. Many pro-Marketeers have sought sometimes, I think wrongly, to underestimate or to play down this nature of the union. I have never tried to do that, and the Clause does not try to do it. It sets out clearly that there are elements in the union which will enable us to do things together as a Community. That brings upon us certain obligations into which we enter, but those obligations are of the essence of the Community.
At this point I should like to refer to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith in reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold

Lever). There are two kinds of objection that one may have to the Clause, but the one objection that one may not have is the objection that somehow or other there are obligations within the Clause which are not necessary and would not have been taken upon the shoulders of this country were some other Government in other circumstances to have negotiated this treaty.
I do not believe that it is helpful to quote people's statements in the past and to argue anything through on the basis that Mr. So-and-So said such-and-such a thing on 1st May and something opposite on 19th May. I will do that. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury I keep my promises to continue in the way that I have begun. I am promising not to make any quotations from other people's speeches.
However, it is fair to point out that it is not an acceptable pose to say that one is opposed only to the terms, not to the reality of joining the European Economic Community, and then to discuss Clause 1 in terms which show that there are no possible situations and agreements in or under which accession to the European Economic Community would be possible. That is what the hon. and learned Member for Leith has done. He has suggested that Clause 1 would be acceptable only if it were phrased in such a way that we could not join the Community not only as it stands, but as it could ever be.
That is the gravamen of the objection which many of us have to the arguments which have been made throughout the Committee stage by many hon. Members opposite. They have claimed that they are objecting to the accidents of this Clause, the way that it has been phrased, the words which have been used, and the bits that have been left out. In fact, they have been complaining about the substance of joining the Community. In many ways they are trying in attacking this Clause, to carry out a fraud. They want the best of both worlds. They want to sound like good Europeans.
Indeed, they are such good Europeans that they dislike Western Europe because they feel that is not all of Europe. They wish to turn our minds to Eastern Europe and to the Mediterranean. Israel, Egypt and Turkey were three other countries at


which we were advised to look. They want us to look at all those countries and say that because we cannot join the lot we should not make a start. That is the gravamen of the argument of those who wish us all the time to pretend that what we are arguing about is the accident of this Clause, of the way it has been drawn, of the way in which my right hon. Friends have phrased the Clause, when in fact what they are arguing about is the business of joining the Community at all.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has given way to someone else with French blood in his veins—and other mixed blood as well—who knows Europe. The hon. Gentleman talked about the life of the new Europe, about a new type of European life, and about a new organism arising in Europe. He has spoken with some enthusiasm. How can that life be institutionalised except in the form of a Federal Europe, with some form of Federal Government? In what sense is it to be anti-European to object to that course of events?

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Gentleman referred to his French blood. Perhaps I might be able to refer to his English parliamentary experience, which is much longer than mine. The hon. Gentleman knows that the genius of the British parliamentary system is that it has evolved in order to accommodate the needs of the nation as they arose. Simon de Montfort, who was referred to in our debates yesterday, did not ride in on his horse with a plan for the bi-cameral legislature that we have today. He tried to make a start on meeting the needs of the nation as they were.
For the hon. Gentleman to ask me what is going to be a suitable system to met the needs of the Europe that we are trying to build is as helpful as if, 250 years ago, I had turned to those who were trying to move one more step towards a Britain which would be more democratic and meet the new needs of that period and asked how they saw that new Britain evolving and what was the end to which they thought it would move. That is not a reasonable thing to ask. Nor is it a reasonable thing to discuss on the Clause. What is reasonable to

discuss is how do we make a beginning, how do we start to create the kind of Community in Europe which many of us seek to build?
I suggest that the way we begin is to ally ourselves in the way that the Clause suggests with a Community which will have a life of its own. It is not in any way an extensive one, in many ways a more limited one than some of us would like, and certainly not as yet as democratic as I look forward to having there soon, but if we say that we are not going to support the Clause because it does not write down in fine point all the things that we would like to see in Europe, not only now but in the future; if we say that we cannot possibly join this Community until it has done all the things that we would like it to do and then we shall join, we shall deny the Community the one great thing which under the Bill as a whole and the Clause in particular we can offer to the Community—what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to as the British democratic way of life.
If we agree to the Clause we shall be giving to this country the opportunity so to associate itself with the other countries of the Community—or, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, we shall be providing the linkage for our carriage to join the train—to enable us to do those things in the Community which hon. Members have said should be achieved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is what the hon. Gentleman thinks.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) who, more than any hon. Member in the House, speaks from a sitting position, has so little faith in the institutions and ability of this nation that he thinks that they will not be able to communicate to the Community that which we believe to be the greatest part of our democratic and national life, then he has a very poor view indeed of his country.

Mr. R. T. Paget: When the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer) thought that some of us were in the stage-coach phase, I was struck by a certain nostalgia,


recalling the time when I, too, longed for a stage coach. It was an occasion on the Ml when I saw a group of cars hurtling into a fog without thought of security and concerned only with the speed of their progression. It was not unlike the state of Europe which the hon. Gentleman wants us to join.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would not quote the past. I feel obliged to do that in a personal respect. I was for many years an enthusiastic European. I was joint secretary to the United Kingdom Council for United Europe. My "joint" was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
However, it was a very different Europe that we then wished to join. We also wished to join it in very different circumstances. They were circumstances in which Britain would have been the leader, but I feel that even in those circumstances I was still wrong.
I recall defying the Labour Government of the time—a position in which I am not unaccustomed to finding myself—when I went to the Hague Conference which started this business. It was that Conference which sired the Strasbourg Parliament of Europe, and an imbecile pup we sired.
I remember being sent for by Ernest Bevin. He advised me against going and said, "It will not fit the history of Europe". Ernest Bevin was not strong in grammar, but he was impressive. I rejected his advice but constantly that phrase has been coming back to me as I have seen this thing develop. It does not fit the history of Europe.
I wish to deal with the aspect of Clause 1 that particularly worries me, something which seems to do great violence to the constitution of this country. This was a proposition which was challenged in a most remarkable speech yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). I was not convinced by my right hon. Friend. I say that with regret, because he is one of the last people I care to disagree with. I am inclined to think that if one were to have a poll, on both sides of the House of Commons, as to who was our most intelligent Member, he would probably

have a majority on both sides. This is a level of reputation and opinion on both sides of the House that I do not remember being enjoyed by any right hon. or hon. Member during the 27 years I have been in Parliament. It is a very remarkable position. It is, therefore, with deep diffidence that I challenge his argument.
What my right hon. Friend said yesterday was, first, that this is not a challenge to our constitution because within our constitution we still remain sovereignly all-powerful. He said that we were able, legally at least, to convert him into Brigitte Bar dot, to make him French, feminine and beautiful.
I remember another commentator on our constitution pointing out that we had the power to decree that all red-heads should be struck off, but he advanced that reason to illustrate something rather different, to illustrate that in considering constitutional power one was not concerned with theoretical legalities. What one is concerned with is what Parliament can actually do. What Parliament can do if we join is vastly less than what it can do if we do not join. That is the important thing.
If we join we accept subjection to a written constitution which we did not write and which we had no part in the writing. We submit ourselves to a whole series of superior laws which we cannot amend, vary or revoke. We submit ourselves to a court at Brussels which is not a court of our country, and every law that we pass must be subject to review and revocation by that court's decision.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): In certain respects.

Mr. Paget: Certainly in certain matters, which fall within the jurisdiction of that court; and those matters include taxation.
We are no longer what was our most ancient and fundamental privilege, the arbiters or deciders of taxation. It is not here, but there that the corn laws are reimposed, and reimposed at a higher level than they ever were in the days when Peel repealed them. But now we cannot repeal them. These are the real things.
Of course, it is not everything. We can still have our own law of divorce and our own criminal law. But on an enormous front, the major part of our activities, the control and management of our economy, we cease to be sovereign. This is a very formidable diminution of our constitution.
The next point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham made was that this is not a constitutional change because what we do is not permanent; it is revocable. Technically it is revocable; we could pass a law. But—I come back not to the legal, theoretical things but the reality of the situation—if we did revoke this we would be breaking the bargain which we had made with all the partnerships we have entered into. We would have entered into this bargain upon the basis that it is irrevocable, and if we attempted to revoke it we should be defrauding every one of our partners.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.45 p.m.

We have entered into that association by way of a treaty. If we revoke, we break that treaty. Within our domestic law it may be technically available to us to do it, but in international law it would be a revolutionary procedure. Of course permanence is always relative in these things. There is nothing that cannot be turned over by violence or revolution. However, in international terms, once we are in we can leave only by revolution, by the defiance of the laws of the Community which we accept, of the international laws which we accept, of our plighted word. Is that not a formidable variation of our constitution?

Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said that there is no case for a special reference to the people or for any special procedure about this form of constitutional change; that if this be so it applies only where the constitutional change affects the method of election or the way in which powers are exercised.

I know no legal authority for that distinction. Surely it would be an odd distinction if we had to refer to our electors as to how we exercised our power but not as to what powers we

exercised. Here is the fundamental thing. The powers which we can exercise are being raped. This is vastly more important than whether the House of Lords keeps us waiting one year or two.

My right hon. Friend said, finally, that this is not a constitutional change because
The sovereignty of Parliament depends on the fact that no one law has a higher rank than another. It is that alone that gives to an incoming Parliament total sovereignty over the country's affairs".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 377.]

This is precisely what we are doing in practice. We are giving this whole body of laws priority over the other laws. We are pledging ourselves, and we are pledging the country's honour, which a successor Government cannot break. We are doing all these things and the Government say of a referendum "We cannot have that; it is a constitutional innovation."

The Government's attitude reminds me of the story which I heard in the First World War of a little man who was travelling across the plains of India in a railway carriage and there was no corridor in the train. He was suffering from dysentery and was in great pain. The other people in the carriage said "My dear fellow, here is a newspaper—relieve yourself." He was about to do so. Somebody handed round a packet of cigarettes. He looked at the other occupants of the carriage severely and said "Gentlemen, this is not a smoking carriage".

I believe profoundly in the authority of a Member and in Edmund Burke's concept that we are appointed to decide; we are representatives and not delegates. We are here to take the responsibility, and that responsibility involves taking decisions which we know to be unpopular. This is our duty and we do not escape from it by going back to our electors and saying "Exercise for us that responsibility which you have given us".

But upon this our responsibility there is a limitation. That is the constitution under which we acquire that authority. If we wish to change that constitution we must go back to the people for the authority. This is the essential distinction. It is argued that if we have a referendum on this issue we shall have to have it for capital punishment and any other thing that people choose to think up. For all these things we are appointed and we have the authority the


duty and the responsibility to decide it, but we have no authority to go outside the constitution under which we were appointed and that is what we are being asked to do and that is where I find it objectionable.

We are being asked to go into a new association with a new constitution under which we have superior laws, and we do not even know what they are. They are undefined. Some of them have not been translated and there is no accepted translation. The Government are not even prepared to tell us what they are, let alone to set them out. We are going into it in order to surrender our sovereignty to an association bound primarily by its mutual distrust created from the fears of the wars which have always divided it, an association in which no distrust could be greater than that felt by France for Germany, by Germany for France and by both for Italy.

We are asked to go into that association because it has proved the capacity to get fat. It has proved no other capacity. It has no will to defend itself. It has failed totally to accept the responsibility for its own defence and it is feckless to the degree that it is shaking and breaking off the American alliance under whose power it alone existed. And there, having dug a power vacuum upon the borders of Russia, it asks us to join that disaster.

Mr. Powell: In the fine riposte which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has delivered to the speech yesterday of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), I found there was one specially memorable recollection. It was not his Indian story but his recollection of the words of Ernest Bevin, words spoken at a very early stage of the evolution of what we now know as the European Economic Community—that "it does not fit the history of Europe". Perhaps if Ernest Bevin had been a greater master of words and had a wider vocabulary, "history" would not have been the word he would have chosen. But he certainly grasped a great truth. I often think that those are least European, have least understanding of what Europe is and what is great and imperishable about Europe, who have appropriated to the European Community, which in many respects is a caricature and even a denial of what is essentially

European, the title of "Europe". If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has done nothing else he has placed that upon the record, and it is good that it should be there.
The Question which was posed to the Committee at the beginning of this debate was the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. Very often the form of that Question is, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill; but that was not the formula which it fell to the occupant of the Chair to use on this occasion. I do not think it is for want of reasons for amendment that it is an unamended Clause which we have before us. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had something to say on this on 6th March:
That is not to say that the Bill cannot be amended in certain respects, in particular—as I have explained on numerous occasions—in regard to the modalities of carrying out our obligations.
I reject entirely the suggestion that the Government had any intention to gag Parliament in the proper performance of its function."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1972; Vo. 832, c. 1056–7.]
Part of "the proper performance" of the House of Commons in Committee is to find how a Bill might be more accurately expressed, how it might be more explicit about that which needs to be clear, and how difficulties in interpretation and application can be smoothed away and removed. That is certainly part of "the proper performance of its function" in considering a Bill.
I just wonder whether it is more than accident that all our efforts to perform that function in relation to this Clause have failed. I just wonder whether it is in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend that the progress of the Bill might be expedited if it so happened that no Amendments were made to it throughout the whole of the Committee stage, with the procedural consequence with which we are all familiar.
In that connection, since it is the Clause unamended that we are being asked to allow to stand part, I should like to transmit to my right hon. and learned Friend—I make no complaint about his not being present at the moment—that it is the common experience of Governments that they proceed slowest when they make this sort of haste. It is no way


to persuade the House of Commons to accept any legislation, let alone legislation like this, to which there is such strong repugnance, about which such strong doubts are felt, to incur the suspicion of an anxiety not to admit even the most cogent, necessary and minor Amendments for fear that thereby time will be lost. By that means far more time is lost than is gained. It is a curious thing that it is not only those who are opposed to such legislation who find, almost involuntarily, in spite of themselves, that they resent that sort of attitude upon the part of the Government. For though we are ranged on two sides in many more senses than one, one of those senses is that here in this House Parliament not only co-operates and debates with Government but also confronts Gov-

ernment. The proper function of the House, including the securing of necessary and desirable improvements in Committee to legislation, is a function which the House will be——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put.
That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 166.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman
Madel, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Body, Richard
Gummer, Selwyn
Money, Ernle


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper


Bruce-Gardyne. J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Jones. Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pardoe, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kitson, Timothy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd. Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Luce, R. N.
Royle, Anthony


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James




Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Soref, Harold
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sproat, Iain
Tllney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Worsley, Marcus


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Steel, David
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Stokes, John
Ward, Dame Irene
 Mr. Kenneth Clarke


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Warren, Kenneth



Sutcliffe, John
Weatherill, Bernard





NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson. Norman
Hardy, Peter
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William
Horam, John
Paget, R. T.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bldwell, Sydney
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow,Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands. Edward


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Steward, Donald (Western Isles)


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert



Duffy, A. E. P.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tomney, Frank


Dunnett, Jack
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Marsden, F.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Watkins, David


Ewing, Henry
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael
Milne, Edward
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
.


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
 Mr. Tom Pendry


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)




Murray, Ronald King

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I was not only in the middle of a sentence, when the Question was put, I was in the middle of a word, and the word was "begrudge". I was observing—and it is my last observation on the initial point I wanted to make—that this Committee, and not only one section of it, will begrudge it if it is suspected that the Government are determined as a matter of principle to allow no Amendments or improvements to be made to the Bill. I hope that the experience on subsequent Clauses will be different from that which we have had on Clause 1.
The previous Leader of the House, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said on 1st March, 1972:
The House has the absolute right,
—we are much indebted to my right hon. Friend for that forthright declaration—
over and above any Amendments which are selected, to discuss and, if it so desires, to reject each individual Clause on the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill.' The selection of Amendments cannot, and certainly does not, in any way deny that right to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1972; Vol. 832, c 442.]
Our minds were certainly sensibly relieved when we heard those words. The question is: what use, and what best use, can we make of this "absolute right" which we are conceded, to discuss, not just to vote upon, the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?" Can we discuss the treaties mentioned in Clause 1, in particular the all-important Treaty, which brings us here and is the cause of this Bill, the Treaty in Clause 1(2)(a) relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the Community?
At the beginning of our Committee proceedings we had some difficulty as to the manner in which these treaties could be discussed, if at all. You will recollect, Sir Robert, that the attempt was made to secure some kind of discussion of them by way of Amendments to Clause 1,

which Amendments, however, for various reasons it proved impossible to discuss.
10.15 p.m.
Now, in the course of those initial proceedings of the Committee, you, Sir Robert, referring to these proposed Amendments which sought to deal with different important aspects of the treaties and of the Treaty of Accession in particular, said that
all these matters can be discussed in the debate on the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill', as far
—you added—
as they are in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 294.]
I am sure, Sir Robert, that when you used the words
as far as they are in order
you were not cancelling all that you had said before; you were only, very naturally and very properly, inserting the caveat that you could not, of course, give a guarantee in advance that anything on these subjects which any hon. Member might say or wish to raise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," would not be ruled out of order. What you did, as I understand it, was clearly to recognise that" Clause I stand part", containing as the Clause does, these references to the treaties and making these treaties the fulcrum and mainspring of the Bill, was an opportunity, if we were to have one, to discuss the treaties, and particularly the Treaty of Accession.
In considering whether we can do so, however, the Committee finds itself confronting a difficulty which has been mentioned before but which it is right to put on record again at this stage. It is simply not possible, in the course of a debate, however long, upon the Motion, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill", to discuss all the important matters involved in the Treaty of Accession alone, and for the same reason for which it is literally true to say that in all the days of debate on these matters from last June onwards we have never had the opportunity to debate the specific provisions and agreements enshrined in the Treaty of Accession. The reason is the perfectly simple and perfectly parliamentary reason, that matters of that kind can only be considered if they are taken specifically, separately, one by one. It is only when


one topic is debated at a time that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench can be compelled seriously to address themselves to the propositions which are put by hon. Members, and can be forced to answer them.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

When I use the word "compelled" or "forced" I do not mean, I assure my right hon. and learned Friend, to convey the idea of deliberate reluctance or, still less, of anything more disagreeable. However, my right hon. and learned Friend knows as well as I do that the nature of the most effective debates in this Chamber, those in which the actions of the Government and the decisions of the Government are most effectively called to account, are not general debates, either debates on a White Paper which is supposed to have decided this matter, or debates on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—not even, Sir Myer, with your predecessor's assurance that "all these matters can be discussed" in that debate. Our difficulty, the difficulty with which we have been confronted through so many months, is that if we wish to ascertain whether the Government have in fact carried out their undertakings in regard to fisheries, in regard to sugar, in regard to New Zealand, in regard to the Commonwealth, we are incapable of following through the debate and of securing a proper answer addressed to each successive subject because the separate items of the treaties have never as such been put to the House. Nor are they now being put to the House in Clause 1; and it is because of the form of Clause 1 and of the Bill that the House of Commons is precluded from satisfying itself on the contents of the Treaty of Accession and upon what for many hon. and right hon. Members is the be-all and end-all of this whole question—the terms, albeit transitional, of accession.

I am afraid, Sir Myer, that, badly though we need the opportunity to call the Government to answer on these matters in the form in which they now stand in the Treaty of Accession, which came into our hands only two or three months ago, we are unable to do so within the scope of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—not

because it would be out of order but because of the nature of the Bill itself and the way in which this legislation is being conducted.

In the debate to which I have already referred my right hon. and learned Friend said that we could throw out each Clause as we came to it:
…if the House rejects some fundamental part of the Bill—and it still has the opportunity…"—
That was on 6th March and the House still has the opportunity—
Clause by Clause and on Third Reading, which would prevent us from fulfilling our obligations, then it would be fundamental to the whole principle of the Bill which could not go forward and be ratified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1972, Vol. 832, c. 1053.]
I imagine he meant that the Treaty could not be ratified. So in a sense each Clause is a Second Reading of the Bill. A yea or nay on each proposition "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", goes to the root of the matter and to the question whether or not this country shall be associated in this form with the EEC.

There is a certain inconsistency between this proposition and what we have constantly been told, namely, that we cannot discuss Amendments which, if they were carried, would involve the amendment of even the tiniest part of the treaties. It is a strange paradox to be told that one cannot carry a Motion which would make or imply a miniscule alteration in a treaty but that one can take, in the form of a Motion deleting a single Clause, a decision which would destroy the Bill. Still, we have my right hon. and learned Friend's authority for it, that every one of these debates is in this sense a decision on Second Reading, and that the consequence if the Clause were lost would be the loss of the Bill and the necessity of beginning ab initio to work out some new form of association with Europe.

That is especially true of Clause 1, which has already been described as the trigger Clause of the Bill. When they began to study the Bill most hon. Members were inclined to turn rapidly from Clause 1 and to say to themselves, "It is merely 'interpretation'; let us not examine it too closely"—only to realise almost immediately that, by reason of the interlocking of Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 1 was of the essence of the Bill and that it was not for nothing that it is in the position which it occupies. On that ground,


as one who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, I must give my vote against the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

There are however grounds on which hon. Members who would not wish to see the Bill lost should seriously object to its being added to the Bill in its present form. That is not a speculative statement, because in the course of our proceedings we have heard right hon. Gentlemen who are explicit protagonists of British membership complain in the bitterest terms about the form of Clause 1. I mention here only the speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), and I wish to recall the highly objection able features in the Clause to which he drew attention.

One has already been mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith); but it is so important that it should be mentioned again before we decide, whatever our view on the EEC, whether the Clause should be added to the Bill. That objectionable feature is that it is completely open-ended for the future.

The Clause as it stands means that we can have no knowledge of the content or nature of treaties—except that they are somehow connected with the existing Community Treaties—which, by enacting this Bill, we shall enable—I was going to

say to influence, but that is not sufficient—to make the law of this country in future without the further interposition of Parliament. It is a completely open-ended Clause in that respect, with only a safeguard which I believe on all sides of the Committee is regarded as inadequate—the safeguard in some cases of a resolution approving an Order in Council. I say "on all sides" advisedly, because clearly my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did not like this aspect of the Clause any more than do a great many of the rest of us. So little did he like it that he would fain find means of saying that when there was any important new treaty it would not happen in that way but that there would be new legislation.

The salient fault of the Clause with which we are parting—I hope we are parting with it for good, but at least we are parting with it for the moment by adding it to the Bill if we so decide—is that it does not determine here and now that legislation is to be necessary in future if further major treaties are to be put into the shoes of the existing treaties for the purposes of the machinery of the Bill.

That fact alone—the renunciation blindfold of legislative control for the future—is sufficient ground for any right hon. or hon. Member, whatever be his view about Britain joining the EEC, to say "No" to the proposition that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I agree with one part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). It is time that those who are pledged against the Common Market have been better in their attendance at this debate, and perhaps more forceful in expressing their views. I would not agree with him that the dialectic has always been superior, but certainly their presence has been evident and continuous. It is noticeable that when those who are in favour—as I have been for a long time—rise to speak, the enthusiasm of hon. Members is rather less evident than it is on other occasions.
For me the whole of the Clause—and I have sat through the bulk of the discussions on it—has been very much, as was said for the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) on an earlier occasion, a crash course in law. There is no doubt that a great part of our debate has been taken up by a complex examination of complicated legal issues.
10.30 p.m.
There has also been for me and for others the difficulty of distinguishing in terms of Parliament between the root-and-branch opposition to entry and the opposition in terms of the Bill to the method which has been chosen to achieve accession. There has been great difficulty in distinguishing those two. Perhaps inevitably much of the debate has tended to be of the former character, contributed to by those who have based their arguments not particularly on what is in the Bill but on their objection to the Community. I suppose that that was inevitable in a debate on a Clause seeking to define the grounds on which the Bill is based. As we move more into the Bill, I suppose that there will be a greater tendency to concentrate on the second.
It was noticeable again today that very much of the debate concentrated on sovereignty, and I want to comment briefly on that. I have in mind not only the sovereignty of the State but that of Parliament. Both have been examined at different times, and both were subject to a variety of interpretations, according to the approach adopted.
What is sovereignty? That is an obvious question and one which it is very difficult to answer. Some say that it is very easy to answer. I say that it is difficult.
One very important question that one asks about sovereignty is whether we gain or lose sovereignty if we share it. The answer depends very much on whether one believes that the alternative to sharing is more or less advantageous. Sovereignty is conditional, like freedom, which we all uphold. I am free to stay in the Savoy. Unfortunately, I am unable to do so economically. Sovereignty is essentially valuable only if it can be used to the State's benefit—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I hear a right hon. or hon. Member muttering "Rubbish" from behind me——

Mr. Harold Lever: It was not I.

Mr. English: He is on the same side. Be careful.

Mr. Harold Lever: But not I.

Mr. Johnston: I said that sovereignty is valuable only if it can be used to the State's benefit or if its loss is to the State's disadvantage; otherwise there is no relevance in it.
I am one of those who believe that sharing sovereignty in Europe will strengthen rather than weaken our capacity to protect our interests. It will be proper now for someone behind me to say "Rubbish" if he chooses, because he may fairly disagree. However, I believe that that is a fair statement in logical terms, irrespective of political attitudes. Sovereignty is about protecting one's interests.
Let me give one recent example. During the monetary crisis, on 17th August last year, we had a situation in which the Americans made certain proposals. They dealt with the Community as a whole. I do not argue that the bargain ultimately struck was not less good than it might have been. But what again is fair and logical is that the fact that the Community members were operating together, with Britain joining them, enabled a better bargain to be struck than would have been possible if the United States had been dealing individually with each nation one after the other.

Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage the possibility that the only result was that they all made the same mistake?

Mr. Johnston: That is a perfectly logical possibility to envisage. I have conceded that the bargain struck was not perhaps as good as it might have been. But it is fair to argue that were the situation different and were the United States dealing with six or seven sovereign Powers individually, they would be less capable of striking as good a bargain.
Much time was rightly spent on the treaty-making powers given to the Executive. This was much criticised. It was argued by many that it would diminish the sovereignty and the capacity of Parliament to regulate, control, mitigate or alter what the Executive intended to do.
A variety of frightening hypotheses were dreamed up by various right hon. and hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) used the evocative and effective expression "prerogative legislation," saying that the Executive would be enabled to have its way in a manner which had not previously been possible.
I think that the right hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West takes a somewhat apocalyptic view of life: that there is but one way, and that the other way lies disaster, utter doom and destruction.
There was something of that view in some of the examples adduced by other right hon. and hon. Members. I recall the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) adducing at some length—perhaps it was the lateness of the hour which created that impression—a frightening picture of a one-party state being introduced by prerogative legislation
Indeed, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—I do not recall his exact words—not exactly chided, but, in a friendly fashion, said that it was not the friendly, avuncular and approachable Chancellor of the Duchy who he was postulating might use these devilish powers in a devilish way, but that some future individual might be tempted by the law to act in a capricious and dictatorial manner.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he could not recall my exact words. I cannot recall them either, because I have never made any such reservations about the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Johnston: I think that the general intention was there.
So we have had the horseman of the apocalypse on the march.
I accept that it is right and proper to examine and seek to improve the discursive procedures which we must develop if the Bill is passed; but it is also fair to point out that in reaching a genuine decision on the rightness or wrongness of a particular course we must inevitably go beyond the simple legal framework within which that course is encompassed.
Here, again, there was a wide area of diagreement in discussion on the Clause. The Chancellor of the Duchy quoted at length, as did other right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and evening, the Luxembourg disagreement, as it is called. He quoted the practice of behaviour and the custom of dealing with differences. This approach often found itself pitted against the legalistic criticism or fears of potentially damaging legislation introduced by the Executive or, alternatively, as some allege, introduced from Brussels by the Community acting qua Community in which this Parliament would have no part.
In a passionate speech the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), when he picked up the second point made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), said that the treaty, in its strict term, was not irrevocable and that we could get out of it but we could do so only by breaching our plighted agreement with all the countries in Europe, and that would be a course of action which would be difficult to contemplate. That cannot be denied, but one cannot do other than deny that the treaty is revocable if the worst comes to the worst, and we are talking only about the worst coming to the worst. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I am no lawyer, and I find


myself confounded by lawyers. When I read legalistic language I am often bemused, but I realise the whys and the wherefores when I listen to lawyers arguing.
There is a distinction between a treaty entered into between two or three sovereign nations and a contract between individuals. If someone breaches a contract and decides to leave it, he can be sued and subjected to various legal procedures. But if a treaty is breached—and that, after all, is surely the essence of the concept of sovereignty—because a nation, in extremis, decides that it is in its own interests to breach it, there is no law to prevent it. There is force which can prevent it, of course, but a treaty exists only so long as the participants find it not to their disadvantage or to their advantage in political reality. I am talking, not about morality, but about reality, and there is a distinction between the two. In the EEC there is a collection of sovereign States which are seeking to harmonise all their economic needs and probably the slow fusion of their joint political will, if such a thing ever evolves.
I come back to the Luxembourg Agreement. This was the concept of a veto on a matter of vital national interest. What is national interest? It has never been defined. Nobody has said whether it refers to this, that or the next thing. Many hon. Members have said that it is a bad thing that the Luxembourg Agreement, or disagreement, is not written into the treaty at some point. Is it so? Is it not better, and is it not also evidence that there is flexibility in dealing with problems and with international relationships?
I think that it is evidence of a relationship in which a striving after compromise is clear, and that is the sort of comment that I should make to those who during the debate on the Clause—and I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East was the last to do so—have commented on the fact that individual commissioners have criticised the lack of democracy in the Community. That is true. There is no direct democratic control, but there is democratic control in a sense through the Council of Ministers, and through back to this place.
In conclusion, I want to touch briefly on three matters—the mandate, the sovereignty of Parliament and the Ad Hoc Committee. I shall not go over the argument about what this or that manifesto said. I make only one comment, which I do not think is naive. It is what happened.
10.45 p.m.
When I listened yesterday to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) examining the Prime Minister's famous expression about the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people—examining it as if it were almost a theological text on which he was preaching—I thought that speeches were never written quite in that way. I dare say that either the Prime Minister or the person writing the speech for him wrote the phrase "With the full-hearted consent of Parliament" and then, with a rhetorical flourish, added "and people".
The Prime Minister, like a number of others, believed and believes that the consent, opinion and intention of the people is achieved through Parliament rather than through the introduction of extra Parliamentary devices such as those proposed yesterday by the hon. Member for Banbury. Indeed, I feel that the famous "Pound in your pocket" statement was coined in precisely the same way, without any devilish intent. We politicians often become prisoners of our own rhetoric.
The reform of the decision-making process and the examination of the voting system are not requirements which I have regularly heard put forward by those now advocating referenda.
Perhaps the most important point to come out of this debate is the fact that we shall have to do something about reforming our decision-making process, and it is regrettable that we know so little about the Ad Hoc Committee and that it was proposed so late in the proceedings.
We should not pretend that the existing internal decision-making procedures of this House are all that marvellous or allow back benchers and the Opposition all that much ability to contribute to the evolution of legislation. Hon. Members may recall that in the early debates on the Community the hon. Member for


Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh quoted the example of how he approached the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the price review. The Minister told him, "We cannot talk about that until I have seen the NFU."
This problem exists and Select Committees have sought to do something about it. Perhaps that is why the Select Committee on Agriculture had such a short life. We must do something about it but, in doing it, we cannot start from the supposition that our existing situation is all that strong, because the Executive in this Parliament is very strong indeed.
I am sure that if we join the EEC the present arrangements here will have to change. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy, who has had a chance to cogitate on this during our debate on the Clause, will say something about what he considers to be the task of the Ad Hoc Committee, what progress he has made in establishing it and what reaction he has had from the major opposition party about it.
Much more information is necessary. There is the whole question of contact with Brussels. Hon. Members have rightly complained about the lack of information. There will have to be time for European Questions in Parliament and we must debate matters before they happen, rather than try, as is often the case with White Papers and Green Papers, to stop events once they have started to happen.
These are all great and serious problems and I am under no illusion about the solution to them all being found when we enter Europe. There will be a continuing complexity of problems. But we are set in the right direction. That is what I believe. Many hon. Members disagree with me. This we must continue to discuss and I hope that the quality and standard of debate on the Bill will continue to be as good as it undoubtedly has been on the first Clause.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am in a somewhat distressing situation somehow, because I have ended a period of working to rule and now I have resumed normal working. I am a little troubled that the Chief Whip, at the instigation of some

of my colleagues, may apply to the Industrial Relations Court to get me to work to rule again.
Some reference has been made to the amount of my voting in the Committee stage so far. The fact of this matter is that I was paired—working to rule, as I have said. This was what my party arranged for me. After all, my hon. Friends would not begrudge that. I was very happy to pair. I do not conceal from the Committee that it was not altogether unpleasant to be absent at the particular points of time when these matters of argument came to a climax. However, I have now resumed normal working, and I hope that hon. Members will endure such interventions as I make.
The first thing that I am able to say now, which I could never say from the Front Bench, is that in the course of these debates there have been strong feelings. I do not resent that, even when they are strong feelings and opinions contrary to my own. This place becomes a meaningless charade if people who hold strong views have to keep them bottled up and have not the courage to express them, on either side. However, I have always felt that if one has strong views in direct conflict with those sitting around one, one is not as heartily cheered as when one has strong views which one insists on expressing in harmony with those around one. As Nye Bevan once said, "Some people accept the crown of thorns and the thirty shillings as well." I do not think that that should be the object of parliamentary life.
I also believe that sometimes those strong feelings and the way in which, within our parliamentary machine, they are given vent to displease even the Chair, Sir Myer—although I am not referring to yourself, or to today. But there have often been attempts to remind us that things can bring the House of Commons into disrepute. Happily, the object of the House of Commons is not to achieve repute. That we leave normally to Dorcas Societies and pop groups anxious to get a particularly generous subsidy from the Arts Council. The object of the House of Commons and this Committee is to reflect the feelings of the people of this country and to be genuinely representative of the feelings of the country.
I am sorry to take a moment or two on this, but I want to convey to some of my colleagues that I feel strongly about what people regard, on either side of the argument, as of great importance, and curiously enough, on the Opposition side, of even more fundamental importance, in a sense, than the most passionate European. If I believed what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) believes, I would be on the point of emigration from a land which had virtually committed itself to the abandonment of self-government.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is a member of the Safeguards Committee and wrote some interesting statement trying to rally people. I do not have it with me, but I shall put it as honestly as I can. It was really on the ground that self-government in this country would be abandoned if we entered the European Community.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend believes that. If one believes that, and if a substantial number of Members of the Committee believe that, if the House of Commons is to claim to be a representative assembly, they certainly ought to have ample opportunity of voicing and arguing those very serious views and seeking to persuade others. They may not convince them, because we often spend a good deal of time in a not-too-hopeful attempt to change other people's opinions.
But changing opinions is not the whole dramatic process. It is a question of influencing the minds and spirits of other hon. Members.
As the right hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell—with whom I so seldom agree—has pointed out, the debate on each Clause of the Bill is in effect a Second Reading debate on the Bill. As one who wishes Britain to join the Community in good time, I think that no kind of pedantic ruling should restrict a genuine debate of the type that we have had yesterday and today. I have not yet had the good fortune to read every word that has been spoken in all our previous debates. However, the passage of time will repair that omission.
The debates yesterday and today have consisted of discussions on worthy points,

some of which have caused me anxiety, not on the principle of our entry, but on the question of the attention the Government should give to ensuring that the will of Parliament is rendered effective by enabling it to give a searching and careful scrutiny to the legislation which by licence or leave of the House of Commons will become effective in Britain.
I do not think that the definition which we have just heard of sovreignty and of obligations under treaties could be accepted unless the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) takes the opportunity to explain his views a little further and defines what he means by continuing the treaty only as long as it is in the interests of the parties bound, That view would have to be defined. If the hon. Gentleman means that the moment an immediate gainful calculation suggests that it would be worth our while to drop out of the treaty we are free to do so, that would be too extreme.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said, in effect, that I argued yesterday that we would retain complete sovereignty and that the Bill would not make a constitutional change. As I shall explain, I am not sure what a constitutional change is, because we have no formal constitution. I am sure, however, that I know what is a constitutional change of the kind to which I was referring.
What I said yesterday was this:
The other thing that confuses a great many hon. Members is that it is said that this is a constitutional change of a kind that must be preceded by some sort of referendum or election. The kind of constitutional change which must by convention, not by law, be preceded by an election or referendum is a constitutional change which alters the way in which we elect Parliament or the way in which Parliament exercises its powers within Parliament itself, such as the power of the other place or the way in which people vote."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1972; Vol. 835, c. 374.]
As I understand it, no such change as by convention requires a General Election takes place here; therefore, even less does it justify the concept of a referendum. That does not mean that a General Election would not be welcome to hon. Members on this side, including myself. I have never asserted that what we are doing could not in some way be construed


by somebody as a change of the constitution. I do not know quite what a change of the constitution means. I can only say that I recognise, as every hon. Member should be able to recognise, what a constitutional change is of a kind which it would be improper for a Government to enact without either having a specific mandate for it or without allowing a General Election to precede it to get that mandate. That kind of constitutional change, whatever that may mean, is not involved in this legislation.

Hon. Members: "Oh".

Mr. Lever: That is my view and would not be my view if I took the view of my hon. Friends or of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, because he took the view—and it is within the recollection of hon. Members so I will only sum it up—that the laws of Europe, or of the Community, would become paramount over British law and that we cannot honourably revoke any of it, and so on.
11.0 p.m.
The truth of the matter is, however, and I will take it first in its pendantic form and then discuss it in its practical form, that, as I maintain, after the passing of the Bill, as before, any law which is in force will be in force because Parliament has willed it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mere contradiction will not answer it. If a law continues in force, that will be because Parliament so wills. The moment Parliament wills it otherwise, as it has to do, that law will cease to have any effect. Hon. Members are shaking their heads.

Mr. Deakins: Mr. Deakins rose——

Mr. Lever: I will give way, but let me first make it clear that this is an unqualified assertion which I make and in my respectful submission it is an unchallengeable proposition of law.

Mr. Deakins: The point my right hon. Friend is making, that the law does not bind us, occupied us in debates on subsection (3). We are in no doubt that any new treaty can be willed by Parliament under the affirmative Resolution procedure. Our objection is that it cannot be amended under the affirmative

Resolution procedure and that it should be enacted and capable of enactment under the appropriate procedure which should have been introduced in the second part of subsection (3).

Mr. Lever: If my hon. Friend had waited patiently, I would have come to that. If, for example, the Bill becomes law and the Government come, with a treaty, before the House and the House rather dislikes one clause and thinks it should come out, whatever the consequences may be, hon. Members must take it out. They must vote to take it out and vote against the treaty and the Order in Council. What would happen would be that the treaty would have no legal effect. What is wrong with that? If Governments choose to offer the House a treaty without offering the House a chance to take out a clause but only to throw out the treaty, the right course for the House is to throw out the treaty and the order.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is looking ahead to the period after we join the Community. At that stage there can be no doubt that under the Treaty of Rome and everything that derives from it Community law takes precedence over law here.
Has the right hon. Gentleman not studied both the Treaty and the various decisions and cases stated, some of which were referred to by Professor Wade in The Times, that if this Parliament did not give its assent by Order in Council, still Community law would prevail because we would have signed the Treaty of Rome? That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves and the right hon. Gentleman must not oversimplify this difficult and grave position.

Mr. Lever: I am not saying what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is alleging. Is he referring to new law or to existing Community law?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It makes no difference. If the right hon. Gentleman will look ahead and read the Bill and get to Clause 2 he will find that both existing and future Community law will take precedence over our law.

Mr. Lever: Without further formality? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Without action on the part of the


House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Without further treaty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I have just said that I do not care if the Committee brings itself into disrepute now and again, but some hon. Members are too immediately accepting the invitation. It is no good bellowing in my ear. I am trying to ascertain exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. He is saying that the whole body of existing law automatically comes into force when we pass this Bill, that this was part of the application to join the Community [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen or it will hardly be worth intervening. I will go back to working to rule. I merely want to see whether I can find some meeting of minds. [Interruption.] I know hon. Gentlemen feel passionately on this, but if they feel too passionately to conduct a rational argument I shall regret it and withdraw from the proceedings. Merely shouting and bellowing will not allow us to have a useful argument.

The Temporary Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Chair I think he will have a smoother passage.

Mr. Lever: I hope you will not make it impossible for me. Sir Myer, to conduct an argument by treating me as a number of my hon. Friends are so that I can hardly hear what is being said.
If we applied to join the Community those of us who were in favour would perfectly well recognise that in voting for the Bill we would assimilate the European law into British law. If the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, wishes to give it a gloss and say it gives precedence to European law he can use that word. But it is not giving precedence. It is the British Parliament enacting a law that European law shall have effect in our land. Some right hon. and hon. Members do not like that. But some of us had that firmly in mind when we started the application. If the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East will tell me that does not derive from British sovereignty, it would seem odd to me. He can use any tendentious words he likes, such as "giving precedence to European law". If I chose to give precedence to my butler it does not make him my boss.

It is my free choice which I can revoke at any time I like in law. We shall come to the question of practice in a moment.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that under British law we shall no longer be free to annul the effectiveness of any law whatsoever in this land, whether it is Community law or any law enacted domestically? I am saying that the House can now, and could in future, by the simple passing of an Act of Parliament, make any one or more laws that it chooses null and void in the courts of this country. From then on, whatever Professor Wade says, and whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, if the House wills it, that law will cease to have effect. I repeat my assertion that if that law continues in effect it will be cause the House is assenting or has assented to it continuing in effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can talk around in circles about precedents and priorities. At any moment that the House desires to act there is no law made in Brussels by bureaucrats or otherwise which cannot be instantly annulled in its legal effects by the Government of this country.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that once that happens, once the House decides it will carry through a law contrary to anything that applies in Brussels, our relationship with the EEC is fundamentally changed and we would therefore have to leave the EEC?

Mr. Lever: That may be so or it may not be so. I do not want to score debating points——

Mr. Heffer: Go on, score them.

Mr. Lever: The official party position—I do not say that my hon. Friend is obliged to be deeply attached to the party line on this any more than I am—is that if we become the Government we shall insist—[Interruption.]—I am recalling the position to the best of my ability. If anyone else can give the correct version, I will yield to him——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is extending invitations wholesale to hon. Members to deal with something which does not arise on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I ask him to address himself to that Question.

Mr. Lever: I do not want to have any differences on this, Sir Myer. I am replying to a speech which was permitted. I am replying in detail and in the strain of speeches which have been made all around me. I cannot see that if I have strayed in answering this argument—[Interruption.] One thing at a time. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has asked me whether it is possible in law or practice to change the rules which now operate. That is precisely the policy of his and my party, that if elected to Government we shall insist on renegotiating the terms so that these laws and those laws will not be effective. The leader of the party has said that in the event that those laws are not changed by agreement, we shall shake hands and say an amiable "Farewell." Whatever views may have been expressed, I do not think that is dishonourable, for reasons to which I shall come. The official position of the Labour Party is precisely that we can renegotiate with Europe, and if we do not obtain a satisfactory renegotiation it is lawful and honourable for us to come out.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) intervened, my right hon. Friend was saying that there was no difference in the position, namely, that the House could decide that it did not want a law which had been passed in Brussels and which, because of the Bill, would become part of our law. He was saying that there is therefore no change in the situation. But there is one particular change. Up to now a law has not been a law until Parliament has passed it, whereas the position with Community law, as my right hon. Friend outlines it, is that a law will be a law regardless, until the House decides to repeal it.

Mr. Lever: It is true that a law becomes a law only when Parliament has passed it. But unfortunately the needs of modern society have required an immense and complex variety of legislation, and the power has often been delegated. Indeed, it has been so copiously delegated that it is impossible for the House to control it. I am very anxious that domestic delegated legislation should be better scrutinised.
But, however the argument is framed with tendentious words about precedents and the like, the only legislation of the European Community that comes into force in this country is delegated legislation of this House, because it is delegated, as it were, to the European Community law-giving sources by this very Bill. Without this Measure, Community law is not worth tuppence in this country. With it, it is enforceable. The moment Parliament does not like it, or does not like the system, it has simply to revoke and repeal it, unencumbered with referenda apparatus. One of my hon. Friends shakes his head, but that is the legal position.

Mr. William Baxter: There has been in operation for quite a considerable period a common market between the nations of the United Kingdom. When it was formed in 1707 it was believed that with the passage of time, if the trade and commerce were not as satisfactory as expected, it could be broken up. The same applies with regard to the treaty of union with Europe. It is my right hon. Friend's contention that we can nullify it at the present time. But what will happen in 10, 15 or 20 years, when we are so much combined with Europe that it will become impossible?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Lever: I was talking about the position, and the legal position, I assure my hon. Friend, is as I have stated it, whether we are speaking of five, 10 or 500 years from now. I do not deny that the practical situation might change. I very much hope that it will. But the legal position is that, so long as this Parliament exists, it will have the power to revoke, terminate or amend any laws in force in this country. The nature of British parliamentary sovereignty is such that its supremacy can be brought to an end only by the closing down of Parliament.

Mr. Michael Foot: There are many objections to the proposition which my right hon. Friend is putting—I think that he is falsifying the position—but, apart from any other reasons, will he explain, if what he is saying is true and the House can pass any law it wants and revoke any proposition which it wishes to revoke, what is the significance of the provision in the Bill about the European Court, and what is the power of that court?

Mr. Lever: The Bill is intended to bring European law into effect. This seems to have startled some people, but it has been a matter of common knowledge for many years to most of us. Hon. Members may not like it—I sympathise with them, I understand their view, and I am willing to argue it—but some of us like the idea of assimilation of laws. To some of us, it does not come with the shock of novelty and surprise that that is one of the objects of joining the Community in these important areas of commercial activity, so as to enable free trade to come in, so as to allow all sorts of co-operation in terms of regional development, anti-pollution measures and the like. We welcome the fact that the British Parliament, of its free will, intends—we hope it will succeed—to make effective in this country a co-operative decision on Community law.
I wonder whether we are talking at cross-purposes here. I have been speaking about legal sovereignty, and I go on record as saying that the position as I have expressed it is undoubtedly and unquestionably true. It will remain true. No court in Britain will enforce laws other than those laws which the British Parliament approves, be they Community laws or not.
We could make Greek law effective in this country if we wanted to. We could say that from now on all laws relating to beer bottles shall be governed by Greek law. "Good heavens" it would be said, "the Greeks have taken over. It is irrevocable"—and the rest. But not so. Why could we then enforce the beer bottle law of Greece in this country? Not because the Greek courts say so or the Greek Parliament say so, but because the British Parliament says so.
Anyone who wants to enforce a law in this country, so long as the House continues in existence, can enforce it only because that law derives title, directly or indirectly, from the House of Commons, its predecessors, or its successors. That is the position now, and it will remain so.

Mr. Paget: I entirely agree that, under our law, we can, technically, repeal; but if we do repeal, we break our agreement, we break our treaties, and we break international law.

Mr. Lever: I am coming to that. My hon. and learned Friend made

a most remarkable speech against entering the Community, obviously from deep conviction, and he said to me, in effect: "What you said yesterday was all right in terms of pedantic legal effect", and he concedes now that what I say is right, because he is a lawyer. But I think that there is confusion among my hon. Friends because they mistake what I am saying when I speak about legal sovereignty. Now he is saying that if we exercise our legal sovereignty there will be a practical fetter on it, that we shall be breaking a Community obligation. Breaking a Community obligation is wrong, breaking a treaty or a moral obligation is wrong, but it has nothing whatever to do with sovereignty. This is a question of practicality.
I attach great importance to the obligations of honour of this country. This House of Commons should be jealous of the honour of the county. But what my hon. and learned Friend is saying is different from what has been urged many times. He is saying not that we are abandoning our sovereignty but that in practice we shall not dare or find it proper to revoke the authority of Community law, once we have granted it in this Bill, as a matter of practicality and honour. I have great affection for my hon. and learned Friend and I feel deeply ashamed that he should have begun his speech with a phrase which I find unjustifiable.
I am prepared to discuss this on a practical basis. My hon. and learned Friend must not combine legal pedantry as to the effect of the Treaty of Rome and practicality when it comes to the question of sovereignty here. This is the reason for his justified passion. If the Treaty of Rome were to be interpreted strictly and English law is interpreted strictly, then I am content with the legal position. But the trouble in these debates is that it is embarrassing for Ministers to talk candidly and with complete lack of reticence.
The Treaty of Rome has become rather like a sacred text. It has nothing to do with what is going to be enforced in fact. The trouble with the anti-Market critics is that they want it both ways. They want me to pretend that the Treaty will be pedantically enforced against them but that the legal rights of the House of Commons will never be enforced against


the Treaty. I do not mind debating the matter on ground either of practicality or of legal rights. On legal rights, my hon. and learned Friend has not a leg to stand on. He rightly and honestly emphasises what he regards as the practicality. He may watch how the Treaty works, with strict attention to every dot and comma and with unfailing application of every article. I have the greatest regard for his sincerity and high intelligence. But on the practicality I have formed a totally different view from his. If Is hared his view, which is the view of others of my hon. Friends, I would share their position on the Bill.
We are entering a Community which is an institution at the exploratory stage, investigating how far we can exercise jointly our carefully preserved separate legal sovereignties and how to deploy those sovereignties jointly to the advantage of the safety, welfare, and prosperity of the peoples of our countries. But we are still retained in separate sovereignties.

Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend argues that we need not worry too much about the details of the Treaty of Rome because it is not operated very specifically by the Common Market.

Mr. Lever: Mr. Leverindicated assent.

Mr. Foot: Does he not, therefore, think that it would be a good idea for this country, before signing the Treaty in these circumstances, to raise with the Community Countries the points which we think are not being operated and to get that matter cleared up here and now? Does not he think it would be a good idea to do it in this Bill? If he is prepared to do so, we shall be happy to have his support.

Mr. Lever: What my hon. Friend does not realise is that there is a very old law in everyone's law of this type, that the custom breaks the strict letter of the law with this kind of convention. That is why I attach such importance to the legal sovereignty because the great fall-back is the retention of the separate legal sovereignties of all the parties. The Treaty of Rome is a complex and near-theological doctrine and the trouble is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot use these disrespectful

terms. Commissioners use them. But everyone who deals with the Community does not take it in this serious way. It is only my hon. Friends and those who are opponents of the Treaty of Rome who passionately believe that this is binding totally, to the last letter a rigid enforcement in the Community. I do not know where they have been if they are willing to believe that.
The fall-back is that if the practical application does not continue in the spirit intended the separate sovereignties of the nations are there to protect that Community spirit, good sense and flexibility. Why is this? With great respect to the hon. Member for Inverness and others who lamented that there was not much democracy in the Community, there is no democracy at all—[Interruption.] I will not trouble the Committee further because I see that everyone is particularly anxious to move on. I see that some hon. Members do not want to debate this question and I will not trouble them further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I understood that the Chief Whip was complaining.
The reason why there is no democracy in the Community is that the Community is not a stage of political development when it wields real sovereignty. That will take years of negotiation and agreement. What we are talking about is a joint exercise of separate sovereignties, exploring to find common interests that would justify the deployment of sovereignty jointly among ourselves. Surely that is not something that is unwelcome to the sensible people who have to live on the Continent of Europe? The reason why no nation has given up its sovereignty is that there is not as yet an adequate receptacle for that sovereignty.
It is idle to talk of democracy or no democracy in the Community. The answer is that the time when the Community will develop to a point where it could be an adequate receptable of the separate sovereignties or part of them is a long way ahead. Hon Members must welcome the arrival of that time. I very much hope that one day the peoples of Europe will arrive at that point when they are able to create a political organisation which would be a suitable receptacle for sovereignty yielded and pooled.
I will not detail this, but the basic principle is that we should search for it. To some people it sounds a terrible


thing. To me it sounds one of the most promising prospects that could open up for the people of Europe. Either way it is not for now. That is not what we are negotiating. We are negotiating the first step of bringing into being Britain's association with an institution which will allow us effectively to pool at points of common interest the sovereignty which separately exercised is much less effective, much less useful and advantageous to the peace and welfare of Europe.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long and I am sorry that what I have said arouses the passion of hon. Members who are opposed to the Common Market. There seems to be an elementary failure of communication. Either I am the victim of an innocent understanding of the law or hon. Members are thinking of something different.
If a bad, unfair or unjust law is enacted or continued in this land, as long as there is this Parliament it will be the responsibility of this Parliament. This Parliament will have the means to bring it to an end honourably and this Parliament will have the means to assent to its continuance. Legally that is unchallengable. Practically, there would be no breach of faith, having regard to the practice of other countries in the Community which is run on the assumption that its long-term survival and success depends on the continuation of separate sovereignty. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) looks at it from the legal and practical side and if he makes the judgment that I have made, he will find that his fears are not well founded.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I am astonished by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). If my right hon. Friend is under such a misconception about the facts of the case it is not surprising that he supports the Bill and wishes to join the EEC. My right hon. Friend forgot this later in his speech because he got lost in his argument, but he started by saying that although there would be some change in the British constitution if we accepted the Bill, the change would not be drastic enough to justify reference to

the electorate for sanction. My right hon. Friend is not aware of the facts as yet, and seems unwilling to learn them.
The facts are that, first, we should transfer the power of taxation of British citizens to an authority other than the British Parliament outside this country. That is a major change. Secondly, the Bill would automatically give the force of law to a whole series of regulations, directives and decisions and a whole series of treaties, not all of which are even known to us. That is a serious infringement of the British constitution. Thirdly, the Bill and the Treaty of Rome together—although my right hon. Friend is still unaware of it because he listens to no one but himself—would hand over powers of legislation on British affairs to authorities outside this country.
The Bill gives power to the Council of Ministers in Brussels and the Commission to make regulations, decisions and directives which will automatically have binding effect in this country and be enforceable in the courts. Is that not a substantial change in the British constitution? We should also be giving this power to the Commission of officials, which is an unelected body, not responsible to anybody and on which there is no representative of the British electorate. Dees my right hon. Friend not think that that is a substantial change in our present constitution?

Mr. Richard Body: For the benefit of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), would the right hon. Gentleman explain that under Article 189 this House would be completely bypassed and would have no say in the regulations?

Mr. Jay: I was about to read Article 189 because obviously my right hon. Friend has never read it.

Mr. Harold Lever: My right hon. Friend asks whether it is my view that this is a change in the constitution. It is difficult to define a constitutional change. What he has said does not constitute a constitutional change, because it in no way alters the law-making power of this country.

Mr. Jay: If my right hon. Friend thinks that it is not a major change in our


constitution to hand over powers of taxation and legislation over British citizens to authorities overseas, I find it hard to believe that he is treating the subject seriously. Not merely would this be unprecedented, but if we are to hand over power of legislation to an unelected body, over which the British electorate has no control whatever, we are not merely making a sweeping change in the British constitution, but we are offending against the most essential principle of democracy—namely, that people should not be coerced by laws which, if they wish to object to them, they have no powers to amend. That surely is a serious alteration in our constitution.
Over and above that, if we accept these treaties and the Bill, we not merely make these immediate legislative constitutional changes, but in future we shall hand over to the Council of Ministers in the EEC, provided that they act unanimously—and I agree there is a veto, but subject to that—power to alter the constitution of the EEC itself and to commit us to all sorts of further constitutional changes which we cannot foresee. I can hardly believe that my right hon. Friend is being serious if he thinks that is not a change in the British constitution.

Mr. Harold Lever: It is purely a form of words. I recognise that the change is as stated, but whether it is called a constitutional change or not I care nothing. I have told the Committee about the constitutional changes about which I care. But will my righthon. Friend add the rider to everything he has threatened, that if in any instance the House of Commons decides to revoke the Bill, all these laws cease to have effect in this country?

Mr. Jay: I was coming to that point, and would have got there more quickly but for my right hon. Friend's intervention. It still remains true that if the Bill is passed anything Parliament has done under our constitution a later Parliament can undo——

Mr. Harold Lever: This Parliament can undo.

Mr. Jay: Yes, this Parliament can undo it. If we pass this Bill, it will be in the hands of this Parliament or a future Parliament to repeal it. What my

right hon. Friend will not acknowledge or does not understand is that, although that is true under our constitution as we know it, it would be illegal under the Treaty of Rome and under international law for us to repeal this Measure and repudiate the obligations under the treaty——

Mr. Harold Lever: That is not so.

Mr. Jay: If my right hon. Friend does not understand that, he is not taking this subject seriously. Every student of the Treaty of Rome knows that there is no provision in it for denouncing the Treaty or seceding from the Economic Community. Here, perhaps my right hon. Friend will agree with me. The simple truth is that for this very reason the power of the British Parliament to reverse any previous decision of Parliament is wholly incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. The two are legally incompatible. That seems to me to be one of the strongest reasons, if not the strongest reason, for this House not accepting the Treaty of Rome and not accepting the sweeping changes in our constitution, rather than putting our signature to all these documents and then, as apparently my right hon. Friend lightheartedly invited us to do, to repudiate them and tear them up afterwards.

Mr. Rippon: It might be helpful if I intervened at this stage. There has been quite a long debate, and a number of important points have been raised to which I might usefully reply.
Since Second Reading, we have spent nine days and one all-night sitting on the Bill. A good deal of time has been spent on procedural matters, votes of censure, consideration of the principle of the Bill, and so forth. I do not want to go over all that ground again. We have traversed it many times. We eventually started on the substantive task of considering Clause 1 on 7th March. Since then, we have had five days of debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) described it very well when he said that we had spent long hours and laborious days and, indeed, some nights on this Clause. I will not weary the Committee by going over all that well-trodden ground. I shall try to deal with such few new points as have been raised


in the last four hours. If I do not cover all of them, I shall read the debate afterwards and see whether there are any matters with which it would be right to deal with later or on which I should write to right hon. and hon. Members.
There was much noisy and lengthy protest from certain quarters at the Chair's ruling that certain Amendments were out of order since they challenged the very principle of the Bill and thereby the decision of the House on Second Reading. It was claimed that the Committee would be frustrated and that discussion would be stifled. It seemed to me at some times that, so far from being stifled, it was almost unending. The ruling on the selection of Amendments has not prevented our considering 39 possible Amendments and, for good measure, future European economic and monetary union, defence, a General Election, a referendum and, today, EFTA. For what is primarily a definition Clause, except for the important parliamentary safeguard in subsection (3), this must be regarded as a pretty thorough and wide-ranging exercise in parliamentary democracy by any standards. I will not repeat comments made in the debate yesterday. But there comes a time when right hon. and hon. Members who wish to challenge the principle of the Bill have to accept that the majority has some rights as well as the minority.
Opening this debate, we had another wide-ranging and stimulating speech from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). He covered pretty rapidly a great many topics. He made one specific challenge. He wanted to know the legal status of the treaties. I think that he was a little afraid that I might side-step that issue. I do no such thing. As the hon. and learned Gentleman suspected, it arises under later Clauses. Nevertheless, without going into too much detail, I will try to give some help.
11.45 p.m.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the legal status of the treaties, I assumed that he meant: how will the texts of the treaties operate as law within the United Kingdom? In many respects these treaties involve international obligations which do not impinge on our domestic law. Therefore, to that

extent they do not acquire any legal status in our domestic law.
The question of legal status in domestic law will arise in two circumstances. The first is when a treaty provision is intended to have direct effect in law. In that case, it will be given the effect of law by Clause 2(1). Indeed, this matter arises not only on Clause 2 but on Clause 3.
The second circumstance in which we have to consider the question of legal status in domestic law arises where these treaty provisions impose an obligation to effect changes in our domestic law. Such changes are effected by our own legislative process and are, indeed, pointed by the kind of provisions set out in Part II and Schedule 3.
The Treaty of Accession itself falls to be treated in the same way as other Community treaties with which it provides the essential link so far as this country is concerned. I hope that that will help the hon. and learned Gentleman in setting the scene for discussions at the proper time. They do not arise on Clause 1 stand part.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) raised certain questions on the legal status of General Programmes. That was a matter of general interest to the Committee which has not been considered before. It certainly is not a matter suitable for an Amendment. I am not talking about whether it was in order. I do not think that it falls to be considered in that context. However, the Committee is interested in the nature of these General Programmes and their effect.
The first two General Programmes simply set out the general conditions under which freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services might be obtained or attained within the Community for each type of activity and the stages by which they might be attained.
The third General Programme defines an order of priorities for the elimination of technical barriers to trade resulting from differences in legislation, regulations and administrative measures of member states. As the hon. Member for Putney gathered, the programmes do not constitute binding Community instruments, since it is clear from the terms of Articles


54 and 63 of the European Economic Community Treaty that the implementation of these General Programmes as regards a particular activity requires the enactment of further specific directives whose force, as other hon. Members have understood, derives from Article 189, not from the General Programmes. Such directives, a number of which have already been enacted, naturally constitute binding Community instruments giving rise to Community obligations as defined in Article 189. However, as such, they fall under Clause 2 rather than under Clause 1. I hope that may help the hon. Gentleman a little.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I recognise that I cannot pursue this matter too far at the moment. However, did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say—I think I did—that certain General Programmes had been given the force of law? When this has been done, in what form has it been carried out? Has it been carried out in the form of a Council directive or in some other form?

Mr. Rippon: The General Programmes do not have the force of law. They are not binding, but the General Programmes are set out. Thereafter by the proper methods directives are brought in which, in due course, have binding legal effect.
This is one illustration of the way the Community works in practice. It illustrates the opportunity that particular interests have—I understand that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in the cinema and the effect on the film industry—to consider what effect these programmes might have on them and how, together, they can work out arrangements and ultimately embody them in directives for the good of all. It illustrates how one does not get taken by surprise by some dreadful act of faceless bureaucrats.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, in his, as always, wise speech from his point of view—I approve of some of his observations—complained of imprecision. I think that that is a little unfair. There has been a detailed consideration of the Clause, which has affirmed the definition of the pre-Accession and Accession Treaties to which we shall be acceding on ratification. There is nothing new there.
Secondly, and more importantly, we have looked to the future, about which there cannot be the same degree of precision, as my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged. We have done that, as I hope we shall continue to do throughout the Bill, for it is to the future prosperity and security of this nation, in Europe and in the world, that the Bill is addressed—not to the past, however much some of us may regret that it is no longer the world in which we live.
We have considered in some detail the types of treaties into which we may enter in the future as full and active members of this great Community enterprise. We all have to acknowledge that it is more than a customs union. It is a Community, and it is that ideal that has fired the imagination of peoples in Europe and in this country. In a year or two we shall be astonished to discover how meaningless are many of the fears and anxieties that we have heard expressed during the debate on the Bill.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) who referred to the fact that the opinion polls shows how many young people are fired by enthusiasm for our entry into Europe. It is perhaps only natural that the fears expressed are the fears of the older generation who are afraid of change because any change, even for the better, is not accomplished without difficulty.
Many people are thinking in terms of the future development of the Community, the rising standards of living and prosperity. It is perhaps not unnatural to look to the future. Others are fearful. This happened in the Community countries themselves, and it is happening here, but the encouraging feature of the great debate that we have conducted is the way in which the younger generation know in their hearts that this is the right way for all of us in the future.
We shall in the future all be involved from the conception to the execution of the treaties, regulations and directives. We have all had to accept that there are great difficulties in getting on to this train ten years after it set off from the station, but in the future we shall ourselves want to initiate some of these treaties, regulations and directives. We may want to resist others. We shall be


playing a full and influential part in these developments.
I hope that in future we shall increasingly debate what we ought to have in our minds now, and consider the future contribution that we can make. Many people talk about the price that we shall have to pay, but there are great benefits. These benefits will be the greater the more we realise that we have much to contribute and that out of that contribution will come the greater good of us all.
In our debates on possible future treaties in this context among member States, we have distinguished clearly between those treaties which the member States may in future conclude among themselves, ancillary to the original treaties, and those which may go into new fields. The Bill is not concerned with the latter. Treaties which do not stem from the basic Community treaties or treaties ancillary to them will have to be considered separately and judged accordingly.
Much as some of us may enjoy defence debates, they have no place in the consideration of the Bill and I am sure that the Committee will recognise that the debate we had on defence, which produced a rather extraordinary combination of forces and arguments of a sort not seen in this Chamber for many years, was totally irrelevant to the Clause.
It is important to emphasise that there is no question of developments in the Community which are not genuinely ancillary to the treaties emerging in any secretive fashion. One of the striking features of the Communities is the openness of their evolution, and there will be every opportunity for us to consider step by step where our interests lie.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and many others have been properly concerned about parliamentary safeguards in relation to future treaties. The Committee will not wish me to retrace all the safeguards we have proposed and the discussions we have had on this subject in our debates.
We have proposed in the Bill safeguards for Parliament to fulfil its proper rôle in relation to future treaties of the kind which fall within the ambit of the Measure. Parliament will act as a watchdog, as it does all the time, over Govern-

meat policy and conduct and consider legislation or the need to empower the Government to legislate for changes in our domestic law before we can fulfil such treaties.
If, in this watchdog rôle, Parliament feels that the Government have not, of their own accord, brought these matters before the House of Commons for approval, then, apart from any provisions relating to Orders in Council, Parliament has many other procedures for calling the Government to account—and I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) about the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. What he said cannot be gainsaid. The safeguard in Clause 1 (3) is rightly there in case there is need for it, but there are other procedures for Parliament, and above all there is the fact, which the right hon. Member for Cheetham mentioned, that no law can take effect in this country if Parliament wills otherwise.
Our intention is that we should go into the Community with the idea that we play our part in its development. If it went wrong, Parliament could, of course, say, "We have had enough of this," but that is not our intention. This is a treaty of an indeterminate length, but it does not surrender any more sovereignty than, in effect, the Brussels Treaty, which committed us for 50 years to keeping our troops on the Continent of Europe to go to the defence of any of the Six members of the Community who might be attacked.
I am sometimes accused of quoting the Leader of the Opposition too often, but he can put things very well when he puts his mind to it. He was right when he said that one must look at the common law as well as at the Statute law. He was talking about the Luxembourg Agreement and said that it was not part of the Treaty complexes and therefore could not be built in. He added that one had to join the Community and accede to the treaties before one could have the benefit of the common law and practice.
When we look at the Community we must look at the substance and not just at the form. The political reality under our system of parliamentary democracy, as I said on 8th March, is that
any Government are responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, if they entered, or


allowed the Community to enter, agreements which could not be carried through this House or which were subject to a vote of censure, they would be open to great difficulty."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1581.]

12 midnight.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now that if we did not like this treaty we could withdraw from it, but would he agree that if we did so we could be breaking the treaty, breaking our word, breaking international law and breaking treaty law?

Mr. Rippon: We are talking about the sovereign power of Parliament. One must recognise that this is a treaty between sovereign powers. In this country the sovereign power resides in Parliament. We must declare and should declare it to be our intention that this should be so. Once the debate has taken place and we have joined the Community we shall find a consensus of opinion about remaining in, when all the bogeys are dissipated.
One cannot escape the fact that we have the sovereign power in Parliament. That is the fact of the matter. Whether it would be a desirable or proper thing to do, having entered into a treaty, to withdraw, is a moral as distinct from a legal issue. But international law can not override our domestic law, for Parliament still——

Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that as a legal issue we should then be in breach of international law.

Mr. Rippon: We would be in breach of an international obligation. But we have to recognise that sovereign States are in a position to do that if they choose. I do not think that we ought to choose to do so. I cannot conceive, in practice, of any circumstances in which we shall wish to do so. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is a great European and a great advocate of European defence, but if his extraordinary suggestion that faceless men could suddenly overnight impose conscription on this country was ever attempted, it would be perfectly clear that the whole purpose and basis of the Community had been destroyed. That is an utterly unreal conception of the Community that we are seeking to join.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), dealing with the question of parliamentary safeguards, raised the position about the Ad Hoc committee. That proposal was put forward from this side of the House of Commons. An ad hoc committee is not something that remains for ever. It was a temporary device whereby Parliament could, if it so wished, consider matters of procedure. Matters of procedure are not for the Bill. The Bill stands on its merits. We could not write procedures into the Bill. After all, this is a matter from one Parliament to another. We would not wish to repeal an Act of Parliament every time Parliament wished to change its procedures. We are considering now how we may improve our procedures in another respect. Our proposals for the Ad Hoc committee have not been acceptable as yet to the Opposition. That is not our fault. We put forward the proposition. It may be that other methods must now be considered. But certainly Parliament has the power to devise such procedures as it feels would be appropriate.
Finally, I follow what the hon. Member for Inverness said about parliamentary sovereignty and the treaties. In the debates on the Clause there have been many charges that Parliament will be losing rights of sovereignty or rights of power over treaties as a result of the Bill. We have had a never-ending stream of speeches from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), of a blood-curdling nature, of the sort which make it understandable that many people are fearful of what will happen if we join the Community. They talked of the sweeping curtailment of the powers of Parliament. There have been so many grotesque statements that I cannot repeat them all.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may himself be exaggerating. Does he agree that one of the main articles of the Treaty of Rome is that which concerns the adoption of a common policy in transport? Is it not possible that in the infrastructure of motorways and the degree to which we spend public money on the surrounding areas we could be against a common transport policy in Europe to which we


should nevertheless be subject but with which we might not agree?

Mr. Rippon: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has proved the whole of the case on sovereignty. Of course there will be discussions, sometimes going on over many years, as to how we could evolve in Europe common transport policies and common environment policies, to give but two examples. There are so many fields in which so many want to work together in Europe. Regional development is another example. This would not involve a loss of sovereignty. This is something which we should welcome with open arms. This is what it is all about. It is working and living together in a European community and dealing with all these matters of administration in relation to which it is not correct that our ultimate sovereignty has been threatened or destroyed in the way that has been suggested.
Sovereignty is a word which is used much more for its emotional than for its legal significance. Of course our sovereignty will be affected. No one has ever denied that. It will be affected because we will, as the hon. Member for Inverness said, be pooling an element of it with other member States which are equally pooling their sovereignty.
The question we must ask ourselves is the question the hon. Gentleman put to the Committee. If we share sovereignty, do we gain or do we lose? Those of us who believe in the concept of the unity of Europe, who believe in the United Nations, who believe in NATO, believe that if sovereignty is shared and pooled one gains in the modern world more than one loses. In fact, in the modern world it is impossible even to exercise such sovereignty unless one is prepared to share and to pool it in a reasonable way.
We must look at the Bill as enabling us to share sovereignty on the basis that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, that the power of the Community to defend and promote its members' interests is manifestly greater than the sum of the power of the individual members to do so. This was evidenced in the Kennedy Round and, more recently, in the trade and monetary talks with the United States.
What is sovereignty considered in isolation? It is nothing unless it is used,

and in the modern world it cannot be used effectively unless it is pooled. As I have said, the legal significance of parliamentary sovereignty is a matter, not of international law, but of domestic law, and nothing that I have said overrides that concept of the legal sovereignty vested in Parliament.
I think that Parliament is right to exercise its sovereign power to pool its sovereignty within the European Community. Those of us who believe that that is the way in which the modern world will evolve are those who are in favour basically of the Bill. The national interests of the Six manifestly have not suffered diminution in the last 10 years. On the contrary, they have prospered and they have gained in influence for good in the world. At the same time their administration and their constitutional independence have remained secure; and so they will be secure for us in this country.

Mr. Heffer: I shall not be long. I want to take up one or two points raised in this debate and give some reasons why I am opposed to this Clause.
I would first like to take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). He made a most remarkable speech and I personally have no objection to the fact that it was a long speech. He exercised his democratic right in this House to make that speech. I was delighted to hear it. because my view is that the more speeches made by him and his hon. Friends who support his view, the better for those of us and the country as a whole, because they will understand the very good reasons why we should not go into the European Common Market. The arguments adduced were some of the most remarkable I have ever heard.
My right hon. Friend suggested that we should look at what he calls the practicalities and realities of the situation and not at the written word. He said that it does not matter what the treaty says, what exists in the written word, that what we should be concerned about are the practicalities.
It reminded me very much of the situation which exists at present in the railway men's dispute. Here we have the practicalities. There is a rule book of which nobody takes the slightest notice.


and when railway men decide to take notice of it the law in invoked against them.
That is a remarkable situation and it could happen in the Common Market, because on an occasion when the European Court decides to invoke the rules, it is no good arguing that the rules do not exist, because it is the rules about which the Court will be concerned. That is the important point which should be made.
My right hon. Friend should look more deeply at the practicalities. It is not just the important question of the long-term objective. One reason why I came out strongly against our entry into (the Common Market was because I realised that we should have to accept on accession all the existing regulations and treaties in which we had had no say. Whether we liked it or not, those regulations would then become applicable to this country without our having any say whatever, and if my right hon. Friend does not think they are there, he has only to look at the great pile of regulations which would be applicable to this country brought in by my hon. Friend, the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Surely no one can suggest that that pile will not apply? If they do not, why have them?
This is like the argument on the Industrial Relations Bill. People said that there was no need to worry about it because it would not be brought into operation—but it is brought into operation; and these regulations will be brought into operation. It is no good my right hon. Friend or anyone else arguing that case. It is not good enough. It is not buying a pig in a poke because it is neither a pig nor a poke.
I listened to my right hon. Friend carefully tonight and his whole argument was that, practically, we do not have to worry because the practicality is that the written word of the European Common Market does not mean a thing, because the practicalities are one thing and the written word is something else. I am saying that that is a dangerous philosophy.

Mr. Harold Lever: I have not said anything of the sort. What I have said is that full regard to every notional exer-

cise of the rules of the Treaty of Rome in its rigidity have never been exercised, nor will be, in the way of a notional recourse. One can argue on the practicality and the amount of practicalities brought in, or on the legal position of sovereignty.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend must know that there have been a number of cases over regional development. If he knows that, why does he argue a different case? Why does he try to suggest that it does not matter what is in the Treaty of Rome? I do not argue that every dot and comma, every line and clause, are rigidly enforced on every occasion. We all know that this situation does not happen in any law, whether it is in this country or internationally. But as long as the law is there, it can and will be used, and it has been used on occasions when it has proved necessary.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I think I can help my hon. Friend in advancing his argument. Is he aware that when we signed the EFTA treaty and it was passed in this House nobody dreamed of some of the implications which would arise from it? For example, in Scotland we discovered that we should not be able to pay a subsidy to the shale industry. We discovered that we had to sink the shale industry in part of my constituency and as a consequence we had mass un employment—[Interruption.]—and——

Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether I am supposed to be replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham, who is in a very excited condition tonight. He finds himself in the position of a rebel. If he wants to know what it is like to be a rebel, particularly when his own party is in Government, he should ask some of his hon. Friends. Some of us were in that position for six years on all sorts of occasions and we became quite used to being barracked from our own side. I ask my right hon. Friend to contain himself and to try to impose upon himself a cooling-off period.
I accept that he has a point when he says that the logic of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian


is that we would never enter into international agreements. I accept that, but in EFTA we found advantages and disadvantages.
I want to take up the point about sovereignty. I agree that the occasion could arise, even when we are in the Community, when, as free men, we could say "We are not prepared to accept this." But the logic of that is that once we decided in this House that we would not accept a Community decision, and if we continued to take that view in spite of all the economic and political pressures that would be applied to us, in spite of all the persuasion that would automatically follow, it would be quite incompatible for us to continue as part of the EEC. Once we were in, that would be quite a revolutionary act. It would be as revolutionary as when the Americans decided to defy the British Government when they established their independence.

Mr. George Thomson: Mr. George Thomson (Dundee, East) indicated dissent.

Mr. Heffer: It is no good my right hon. Friend shaking his head. That would be the reality of the situation, and he has argued very strongly about realities.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster argued that we should under stand that in modern society there was the necessity to pool our sovereignty. There is an argument for that under certain circumstances, but it is remarkable how after a period some of the nations involved usually find that they are not quite as equal as the others. Let us take the example of Comecon, where there was a so-called voluntary agreement. Today, countries like Rumania have had to establish sovereignty to develop their own industries and at the same time to fight off encroachment from other parts of Comecon. That is what happens in society today. It is no good saying that there is a vast and growing conglomeration of nations all getting together. That is all right up to a point——

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose——

Mr. Heffer: I am not giving way any more, because other hon. Members wish to speak, and I do not think we should go on all night.
The Common Market can be a united organisation only as long as the national interests of the nations that make it up coincide. I believe, because I happen to be a socialist, that once it is found in the Common Market, with the contradictions of the capitalist system within it, that the national interest of one country are contrary to another, it will not last five minutes. That is already beginning to happen. There is all the talk about the great prosperity and rising standards of living in the Common Market, but there are over one million unemployed in Italy, and there are economic problems in the other Common Market countries. The contradictions are such that the only real answer if European co-operation is wanted is a socialist Europe.

Mr. Deakins: We are not going to get it.

Mr. Heffer: We shall not get it under the present Community, because the Community operates on the basis of rules of competition. It is the opposite of what socialism will mean.
It is not a form of words that we are arguing about. The problems of taxation, the harmonisation of taxation policy, the CAP, and so on, are realities, and not just a form of words, as has been suggested. They are realities that will affect our people very badly. I have no wish to paint a blood-curdling picture of what Europe is likely to be—I do not know what it is likely to be—but what I say is that, if we accept the Clause and the Bill as they stand, our country's opportunity to retain its sovereignty and carry through its own Acts of Parliament without at some stage running into a great clash with all the other nations of the Common Market will be impossible. We should not put ourselves in that situation, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause.

Mr. Milne: The Chancellor of the Duchy dealt in great detail with some of the future prospects for Europe. But the Committee is debating Clause 1 of the European Communities Bill, a Bill before the British Parliament. In some ways, this underlines the points arising from the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) on the question of the sovereignty of Parliament.


Generally, when we discuss a Bill, whatever be the subject, we are considering matters which affect this Parliament and the British people. But if we accept Clause 1, we shall accept laws and regulations laid down elsewhere. We may be voluntarily accepting them, by vote of the House, but the decisions in regard to them will have been taken by others.
In some ways, that is the kernel of the argument. But, what is more, it shows the fallacy of what the House did on 28th October in deciding to take the major decision in regard to Europe without discussing in detail what we were taking on. We should have discussed the implications of the ECSC treaty and the Treaty of Rome at that time, before moving towards acceptance of membership of the Communities.
The treaty setting up the European Coal and Steel Community, the fore runner of the European Economic Community, was signed 21 years ago, almost to the day. There is a historic parallel here which may interest some of my right hon. Friends. That very week, when the treaty was signed in Paris, three members of the then Labour Government, including the present Leader of the Opposition, resigned not on the issue of the Community but on the issue of Britain's overseas defence commitments. It may be some consolation to my right hon. Friends to know that one of them later became Prime Minister, and another——

Mr. Harold Lever: I am getting worried℄—

Mr. Milne: If my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue, he may have some indication of where he will land up as well. Another became Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington. So there are glittering prospects here.
12.30 a.m.
I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us how much control the House has over the question of the Communities brought into being 20 years ago. This is relevant to the situation of our coal mining industry. One of the Bill's commitments is an investment in the reserve fund of the ECSC, which stands now at £90 million. We are being asked to contribute £24 million in sterling within three years of our accession. We

are in difficulty with our mining industry. How much more shall we be in difficulty with this additional commitment to the-tune of £8 million a year in our first three years membership?
What happens if the ECSC decides that the reserve fund must be increased? Are we to go to our mining constituents and tell them, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the railway men last week end when they asked for a reasonable wage, that asking for higher wages is blackmail because the Government need money to bolster up the reserve fund?

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Ripponindicated dissent.

Mr. Milne: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to explain why.

Mr. Rippon: I shook my head sadly at the fact that the hon. Gentleman should be so unaware of what he should be telling his constituents. Of course we shall be contributing to the reserve fund, but we shall also be beneficiaries. He should tell his constituents of the enormous advantages which have arisen in Europe as a result of the fund. We have discusssed in the House all these aspects throughout the negotiations. They were well known before 28th October. The hon. Gentleman must take a happier view. The Labour Government were clear that in applying to join we accepted this contribution. On the question of the coal and steel treaty, we picked up the hand left by the Labour Government and got exactly what they wanted in our negotiations. There is no dispute about that aspect.

Mr. Milne: I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman has intervened. He made a debating point about the Labour Government. On 10th May, 1967, I voted against the Labour Government on this issue. He need not lecture me about what the Labour Government did in 1967. He talked about our responsibilities to constituencies and urged me to take a happier view. As my right hon. Friends will recall, the 1951 Labour Government refused to accept the ECSC because we would not have been able to operate our own publicly-owned industries, steel and coal, at that time, under it.

Mr. Harold Lever: Not now.

Mr. Milne: My right hon. Friend says "not now", but I am dealing with the 1951 situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we should adopt a happier attitude. Consider the contraction in the mining industry in the Community countries, particularly in Germany and Belgium. The mining communities there have suffered greater ravages than mining communities in Britain in the last ten years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman represents part of my county and he knows about this. There may be a difference of opinion about the impact of contraction, but on the basis of the figures there can be no argument.

Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sold the pass over the transitional period? He stood at the Despatch Box and said that the Government had tried to get such a period and then decided that it was not necessary. He has never explained that.

Mr. Milne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to take a happier line and I was dealing with some of his misdemeanours. I cannot deal with all of them in a short speech. What the Chancellor did not tell us about the details of the effects on the coal and steel industry is only one part of what he kept from us about the effects of entry.
That is why this Clause is the kernel of it all. We decided on 28th October to accept something we had not fully discussed or understood. Now we are finding out that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did for coal he did for fisheries and for agriculture.

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my right hon. and learned Friend's point? The coal industry in this country will gain considerable advantages from the fund my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned. Has he told his constituents about this? Has he spread the good news in Northumberland about which he is so concerned? Why does he take such a gloomy view?

Mr. Milne: The hon. Member used to reply to my Adjournment debates about the gloomy things I had to tell my constituents when he sat on the Government Front Bench. Clause 1 shows

that many of the responsibilities we should have to accept on entry to the Community have never been discussed and I hope the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: A moment ago I threw a copy of the European Communities Bill away from me in considerable anger. To the extent that that represents an offence against the Chair, I apologise, Sir Robert, but I was prompted to do so by the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Lever). He spoke of the Treaty of Rome in much the same way as the late Kaiser Wilhelm II spoke of our one-time treaty with Belgium, as though it were nothing more than a scrap of paper. If the Treaty of Rome is nothing more than a scrap of paper containing 248 Articles—and, as the saying goes in Brussels, 2,480 exceptions—so is the Bill. I take a more serious view of the Clause and the Bill.
After the detailed examination to which the Clause has been subjected both by the Amendments which were rejected and the Amendments which were selected and spoken to, I begin to feel in rather the same frame of mind as the late Howard Carter might have experienced if, instead of the tomb of Tutankhamun, he had discovered an ancient Egyptian public lavatory. Clause 1 is far more important than we realised at the beginning of our proceedings in Committee. It is not only a definition Clause but it gives us some idea of where the Community is going, how it will evolve and, as you. Sir Robert, said when we started our deliberations, it provides the nuts and bolts for a certain type of political evolution.
In an earlier intervention I pointed out that the tenor of the speech then being made and the description of the Community's internal practice that was being given made sense only in the context of a Community which is evolving to a federal system of government. Legal personalities and political entities with a life of their own must acquire the natural trappings of sovereignty, and that means a Federal State in Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham welcomes that, but if the Government welcome it and have paved the way towards such an evolution by instant acceptance of all the treaties, why do not they say so in the Bill? Why is


there not documentation giving the Government's view of the future of Europe as they see it?
Do not let my right hon. and hon. Friends who are in favour of entry patronise me either on the subject of the Continent of Europe or on the proposition that I find it difficult to believe that the present Government will go into Europe to provide opportunities for us to socialise Europe. The countries which formed the Six have taken very good care in the treaties they signed, and in the Treaty of Rome in particular to block that road, if not for ever, at least for a good many years.
There is an interesting book on this subject in the Library written by an hon. and gallant Member opposite, a book called "Half Marks". That hon. and gallant Gentleman is also Chairman of the Conservative Committee for Europe and he makes it clear in the book that the Common Market is being raised as an obstacle to socialism and certainly is not intended to be one of the paving stones for a socialist Europe.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Would my hon. Friend not agree that constitutional instruments can be developed for purposes very different from those conceived by their architects? Would those in the United States who drafted the Bill of Rights ever have conceived that it would be used as an instrument to liberate the slaves?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It is an essential part of my political philosophy that institutions which at one time served one purpose can be used to serve another. Nevertheless, in Europe the crucial years are the next decade.
When I look at Europe politically, 1 do not see either the political forces of socialism being strong enough, or the institutions of the Community being flexible enough, to enable the kind of evolution which my right hon. and hon. Friends regard as desirable. This is a matter of personal opinion and observation.
I have never claimed to speak as though I were in personal communication with the Almighty or as if I were speaking from tablets of stone, but, as my

right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham will concede, I know a little about various European countries, and the political map of Europe I see offers small consolation to me as a socialist.
With the addition of the British Conservative Government to the existing Governments of the Six, many of these loose and flabby things in the Treaty of Rome will become as firm as the Rock of Gibraltar. Because precedents have been set and because large dollops of legislation have been swallowed whole in one Clause, then the Clause, far from being merely an overture to the Bill, far from setting the main themes of the Bill, becomes to a great extent the kernel of it. If we allow the Clause to go away un-amended, we shall be giving the Government powers—we have already given them the necessary precedents—perhaps as far-reaching as the powers which they claim in Clause 2, which I know I must not mention.
I end as I began, by saying that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham can show me the detailed methods whereby this country as a constituent member of the EEC, as a candidate member of that Community, and in association with trade unions and other more or less politically helpless organisations in Europe, can so change the Treaty of Rome and all the other ancillary treaties, regulations, directives and so on, that what seems to be an obstacle to my own conception of socialism will become the highroad to socialism, I shall not have the slightest hesitation in joining him in his group. As the defendant said to the magistrate, "I am always open to conviction."
But I think that even my right hon. Friend does not care very much for Clause 1 in its present form. If he will join me tonight in voting against it, I offer my services to him for public or private tuition on the complexities of the Market. I ask him to sustain the thesis that he pesented at such great length earlier this evening—that is, damn and blast Clause 1. Then my right hon. Friend may try to persuade me that an instrument created as a substitute for socialism becomes an instrument of socialism.

Mr. Spearing: I take issue with the Chancellor of the Duchy, who was glad a little while ago that I intervened in the


course of his speech. I had not expected that the width of this debate would be as great as it has been. He raised a very important point when he talked about the pooling of sovereignty.
We all understand that in a modern world this is a matter of fact that sometimes we cannot avoid. In international trade and in matters concerned with currency, this is only too true. But surely it makes a great deal of difference which part of our sovereignty we cede, and it is a matter of the topic concerned rather than the principle as a whole.
When I raised as an example the extent of compensation for motorway routes, I was being quite serious. People in this country are very concerned about the compensation that this Government or any other can pay in respect of motorways. It may be desirable to have a good European transport policy——

Mr. Harold Lever: Hear, hear.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees. But whether that policy goes to the extent of saying that in the north of Scotland, in central London, in central Paris or down in Genoa there should be the same compensation in respect of motorways is a different matter.
I am not against the EEC. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) may be glad to know that I am not anti-Market. I am non-Market because in many of the particulars of the Treaty of Rome it is pushing detailed topics in which we are supposed to have one policy into quite unrealistic forms. What we shall need if we are to have European unity is co operation, but not necessarily on the sort of matters that are contained in the Treaty of Rome, which may prove to be obstacles to the healthy development of our own communities where people can make reasonable decisions in their own way and not by a general pooling of policy, so that a bureaucrat in Whitehall, Brussels or anywhere else superimposes a uniform policy on a range of areas where a uniform policy is not necessarily to the benefit of everyone——

Mr. Harold Lever: Hear, hear.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to have my right hon. Friend's support. But he will

see from a study of the treaties and the regulations stemming from them that that is not possible.
I turn to one or two aspects of the debate which worry me. We have all engaged in our individual expeditions and found our nuggets. I intend to draw attention to four aspects only. The first is the wording of the Clause. The second is the way in which we have not been allowed to look at the treaties. The third is the legal machine being invented in Europe. The last is the safeguards which are claimed to be available to this House and to the nation in the working of the Treaty of Rome.
I ask the Solicitor-General why the Bill was drafted in this way, and why the Explanatory Memorandum could not be much more explanatory than it is. I will come back to why I think that Clause 1 is misleading. Why could not Clause 1 have been extended over two or three pages instead of having this dehydrated, interlocking, closely woven legal network of which anybody going to a public library to see could not make head or tail?
I had to intervene when the hon. and learned Gentleman was replying to that debate. When I asked why he had not dealt with my question about the length of the Bill, all that he could say was:
I have listened to the points the hon. Gentleman has made."—[Official Report, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 345.]
That was the reply of the Solicitor-General of this Government and Parliament. He could not give any reason for this dehydrated, compact type of Bill. He would not dare to give any reply to an hon. Gentleman who has no legal training or knowledge and is a comparatively new Member. If that is the standard for which the Government are going, I hesitate to think what will happen to the Industrial Relations Act at a later stage. Is it realistic or not? That is the standard of reply which we have had throughout the debate.
The second matter concerns the treaties. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy is present. On 6th March I raised with him the fact that he had said:
During the Second Reading debate it was open to any hon. Member to raise questions


concerning any part of the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties
—presumably he means the 110-odd—
and to argue that the terms should not be accepted. Many did."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1972; Vol. 832. cc. 1052–3.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was clearly saying that because that was part of the Second Reading debate—I am sorry to see him departing when I am making a point of some moment; perhaps he is going to find the answer—he felt that the treaties were within the scope of the Bill. The Second Reading debate was on the principle.
Only a short time before the right hon. and learned Gentleman had voted in support of a ruling which you, Sir Robert, had given. I know that it was a difficult ruling for you to give. In a letter to me the following day you said:
The amendments marked 'A' on the enclosed amendment paper were ruled out of order because they subject to Parliamentary approval provisions of the Treaties already accepted and therefore fall outside the scope of the Bill".
The Chancellor of the Duchy cannot have it both ways. The treaties either come within the scope of the Bill or they do not. Indeed, he praised hon. Gentlemen who had referred to them, and then voted in favour of a ruling that they were not within the scope of the Bill. This would be a serious matter concerning any Bill, but on this Bill, when time and again the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expansively said that this, that or the other has been clear from the start, it is a matter of which the Committee should take severe note.
Those who have secret doubts about the whole exercise should take note, because it confirms that the Government do not know what they are about. Alternatively, they know very well, but will not admit, that the Bill is essentially undemocratic in the way that it is drafted and is being defended in debate.
The third point concerns a new legal machine which I believe has been constructed by the provisions of Clause 1. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) said, it joins, as it were the statutory pipeline from Europe to the shores of this country. We are taking aboard neat European legislation discussed and produced in a European way.

I have no quarrel with that. Colleagues in France and Germany may find the Commission and the EEC very much to their liking. I have no doubt that the EEC legislation and documents are perfectly compatible. However, it is clear from Clause 1 that we have to take this pipeline and put it into our statutory bloodstream. I hesitate to recall the difficulties which we have had with drip and blood transfusions, but that is the principle which we are now adopting in Clause 1. These great volumes which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has brought into the Chamber on occasions will decorate the courts of this country.
1.0 a.m.
During the debate the Solicitor-General made it clear, on a concession, that if we liked it would be possible for this House to legislate. He was forced into a corner, and he admitted that. If that is so, why could we not have had what I have called a conversion machinery for all the legislation? With that we could have converted—it may be without much choice—that European legislation into our own customary statutory form. There would have been nothing wrong with that.
I now turn to what constitutes an international agreement. Under subsection (4), there is this new law-making machine of saying that any international agreement which is deemed as such by the Government can become part of the law of this country. Again on vital matters the Solicitor-General seems to be vague. On 15th March I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the exchange of letters on the matter of the agreement between countries concerning a system of fixing Community farm prices constituted an international agreement. It was an exchange of letters which fixed the procedure for making farm prices. Nobody in the House could underestimate the importance of such a procedure. Farm prices will be a vital part of the EEC negotiations, and there was an exchange of letters on the ground rules for these negotiations.
I asked the Solicitor-General whether this would be an international agreement and, on my reading of his reply, the Solicitor-General did not know. That is not surprising because, in talking about


the exchange of letters the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that they may or may not constitute an inter-agreement. If we are to have such vague definitions of what constitutes an international agreement on such a vital matter as the ground rules for the decisions about what farm prices should be, and if the Solicitor-General does not even know that, what sort of legislative assembly is this? I do not think that this would stand up to academic investigation for one moment.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee a point that has been overlooked so far in our deliberations on the Clause. Time and again when I have opened my newspaper in the morning after our deliberations I have seen something like "Rippon says there are plenty of safeguards". We have heard about the safeguards of an Order in Council, of debates in this House, and of one thing and another. We have heard about the safeguard of the unanimity rule, or the veto, or the Luxembourg Agreement, or Luxembourg disagreement depending on what hon. Members like to call it.
I thought that it would be right to draw the attention of the Committee to a Question that I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 21st March. I asked whether he could give the origin of these procedures. We know that it was in the Luxembourg Agreement, but I asked for the origin of it because in the White Paper, Cmnd. 4715 the Government said:
On a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous.
We know that it is not established in the treaties. It is not in the 110 or so treaties which constitute the new statutory agreements to which we are to be subject.
I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman where this originated, and this is what he said:
The statement in paragraph 29 of Cmnd. 4715 is based on a communiqué issued on 29th January, 1966, after a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community. It also reflects the practice of the Council of Ministers since that date. The relevant passage of this communiqué states that: Where, in the case of decisions which may be taken by majority vote on a proposal of the Commission, very important interests of one or more partners are at stake, the Members of the Council will endeavour, within a reasonable time, to reach solutions which can be

adopted by all the Members of the Council while respecting their mutual interests and those of the Community, in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty."—[Official Report, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 324.]
There is nothing there about a veto or unanimity. When it refers to endeavouring to reach solutions which can be adopted by all members of the Council within a reasonable time, it is only saying what any and every legislative body would say. This is no safeguard or veto. It is the sort of of twaddle to which we have been subjected from the Government. If I am wrong, perhaps the Lord Advocate will contradict me.
I trust that hon. Members will find it impossible to vote "Aye" in the Lobby for the Clause, for it seems that the Government have hardly any credibility in defending this miserable provision which is badly drafted, badly presented and rotten to the core in terms of the democracy in which we believe.

Mr. Deakins: I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) will allow me to come later to the point he raised about the status of the Luxembourg Agreement—or, more accurately, the Luxembourg disagreement.
Although I have spoken on many occasions in the discussions on the Amendments leading up to the Clause stand part debate, I rise with some diffidence at this stage because of the extremely high calibre of the contributions—from, for example, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—on the Clause. I am not sure that my talents enable me to emulate them.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made a telling point at an earlier stage when he said that the House of Commons was always at its best when considering the detailed provisions of a Bill rather than when debating broad general issues. Proof of that is the fact that I cannot remember any of the speeches that were made in the six-day debate last October, yet I am sure that for many months I shall remember several of the speeches that have been made in this debate.
I shall not repeat the major arguments against Common Market entry—for instance, superior legislation taking precedence in this country, and so on. I address my remarks to those hon. Members, if any, who may be in some doubt as to which way to vote on the Clause, and who have not had the educational benefit of regular attendance at our proceedings in the detailed discussion on each line of the Clause. I wish to make four brief points on the content of the Clause, and not on the broader issues—although I am tempted to do so.
My first point relates to subsection (4), which is part of this grand interpretation Clause, the subsection dealing with the definition of "treaty", which includes "international agreement" for the first time, I think, in British constitutional practice. In future a treaty will no longer be merely a treaty as we have always understood that word; it will be any form of international agreement.
One could say that there was nothing vague about that. But, although the wording may seem to be quite precise, as recently as yesterday the Government told us, in resisting Amendment No. 200 which asked that the treaties be listed in Schedule 1, that they could not do that because, among other reasons, they might include in that list of treaties one which was not technically a treaty within the meaning of the Clause or that they may omit one which was technically a treaty within the meaning of the Clause. If that is not vague and imprecise, I do not know what is. For that reason alone, the Clause ought to be re-drafted.
If we pass the Clause as it is, we shall have failed in our duty to ensure that our legislation is clear, precise and admits of no misunderstanding, not only for the courts of law which have to interpret it but also for business men who will no doubt be affected by many of the Community provisions, and, above all, for the ordinary citizen.
My second reason for pointing out the deficiency of the Clause has already been alluded to. It concerns the new parliamentary procedures in subsection (3). No one on this side of the Committee, including pro-Marketeers, would accept that it is sufficient safeguard that we should have the power of rejection of a new

Community treaty only by rejecting an affirmative Resolution. We have been told—but it is not part of the Bill—that if it were a major new treaty on, perhaps, economic and monetary union or the setting up of a federal parliament, the Government of the day would inevitably have to enact that. That means that a future Government would have to defy the particular provision of subsection (3).
Be that as it may, it is a very unsatisfactory position. It is even more unsatisfactory that the additional safeguard proposed, some sort of ad hoc Select Committee, has not been included in subsection (3). It may or may not be a safeguard. In the opinion of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it could not possibly be a safeguard. The Government cannot reply, "The constitutional functions of that committee have not yet been agreed," because we could have put in a form of words which would have left the precise functions to a later stage.
My third reason for resisting the Clause is connected with the Luxembourg Agreement, or disagreement, of 1966. Here I follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. Article 148 of the Treaty of Rome is part of the statute law of the Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham, whose point of view would, I think, be shared by the Treasury Bench, asserted that the Luxembourg Agreement—or disagreement, as I prefer to call it—is part of the common law and practice of the Community. Let us assume that that is true. There is, then, on the Statute Book a conflict between the Statute law of the Treaty of Rome and the common law of the Luxembourg disagreement.
1.15 a.m.
The interpretation of any conflict is a matter for the British courts, as I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree. It is surely a fact—I speak as a non-lawyer and am, therefore, open to correction—that in any conflict between our common law and a precise Statute law the courts will always give precedence to the Statute law, on the grounds that the Statute law usually follows, in some cases perhaps many centuries after, the original common law


and for that reason, if for no other, must be considered to take precedence.
That means that if this issue were to be tested in the courts it would not be the practice of the Community which would be supreme; it would be Article 148 of the Treaty. No matter what statements had been made by Government Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham could be included in that—they would not have much impact on the courts.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Luxembourg Agreement or disagreement is invoked, there is no Community regulation which would ever come before a court of law in Britain. Therefore, this dilemma which my hon. Friend sees would disappear.

Mr. Deakins: The EEC court, as well as the British courts, must interpret the Treaty of Rome. So must those who operate under the secondary legislation which stems from the Treaty of Rome. It is open to anyone to say, "This ought not to have been passed by the Council of Ministers in the way that it was, because it conflicts with the Treaty of Rome." In those circumstances, it would be no defence for someone to say, either before a British court or before the European court, that this particular defence was available.
My last point concerns the interpretation of Clause 1 and, indeed, of the whole Bill. Clause 1 states—or tries to insist—that it is an interpretation Clause, but it gives no guidance to the British courts as to how they are to interpret Community treaties or Community secondary legislation. I am well aware that the wording of Clause 3(1) which is not—I repeat "not"—entitled an interpretation Clause is:
For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties…shall be…
dealt with in a certain way. I submit that the words "meaning or effect" do not cover the precise point of interpretation. If they did, the word "interpretation" would have been put alongside the subsection by the parliamentary draftsmen.
This will make it very difficult for the courts to interpret what Community legislation means. Indeed, anybody who has read through the 42 volumes of secondary legislation and the 10 volumes

of Community treaties will be well aware of how vague this legislation is which is now to become part of British law. I give one very important example. The Hague Agreement of December, 1969, which is an international agreement, by virtue of Clause 1(4) becomes a treaty which is part of the law of this country. There is a sentence in this treaty relating to the desires of the Governments there assembled to work towards a "United Europe". I will give the exact reference if it is wanted. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I will not be tempted by my right hon. and learned Friends into arguing about a united Europe or federalism. I should welcome an opportunity so to do, but I shall make myself very unpopular if I pursue that point now. I refrain from doing so, not from any reluctance or inability to do so, but because of the time factor. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they continue to attend the proceedings of the Committee I shall deal with the point without giving quarter.
The point I am making is that the interpretation of the words "movement towards a United Europe" would be a matter for the British courts; and, indeed, it is a matter for politicians. But we have been given no guidance by the Government on this point.
My conclusion is that those hon. and right hon. Members who have a great love for this House cannot genuinely at the same time have a love for the Common Market. The two affections are incompatible. I hope, therefore, that those who love this House above all else will reject Clause 1 for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Michael Foot: I will seek to detain the House only for a few minutes because I do not wish greatly to extend the debate. Most of the points I wished to make in answer to my hon. Friends or enemies who argued in the debate have been effectively made by others of my hon. Friends. I shall therefore be brief. But I cannot refrain from returning to the arguments which some of my hon. Friends have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), whom I certainly welcome to our debates. This is what the House of Commons is for, not only for debates across the Floor but for debates where hon. Members represent


different views inside political parties. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend and his contribution to debate. However much I believe that, what my right hon. Friend did today was to use his brilliant talents to darken knowledge, if the House were to accept what he was proposing and if the country were to believe what he said.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend was seeking to tell the truth, but I did not think that he was succeeding, and that is not his normal custom. I intend to indicate lines on which I hold that view.
My right hon. Friend insists that sovereignty remains in this House and seems to make that insistence on the basis that if a decision to set up some kind of authority or to make some law derives originally from this House, and this House retains some last resort power to recover that power which it may have yielded, then there will be no breach in the legal sovereignty of this House.
Let me make this supposition: suppose that this House were to decide, with the provision that I have stated—that after, say, three months or six months, or a year, it could, by resolution recover the power it surrendered—that it would say, "We will surrender all power to legislate, powers of Statutory Instrument, powers of Orders in Council, all powers—to some one man who might think himself capable of discharging all those functions—Lord Robens, shall we say—then my right hon. Friend would argue that because that decision derived from the House in the first place, and because the House had the power to recover its powers if it wished, it would not amount to any removal of sovereign powers from this House.

Mr. Harold Lever: I did not exactly say that. It would be a lunatic act, and I do not now refer to Lord Robens. It would be a lunatic and repulsive act to delegate all power even to me, for example, but it would not change the sovereignty situation. Sovereignty is retained in the House of Commons.

Mr. Foot: I understand my right hon. Friend. He should also understand that when hon. Members reply, they should be allowed to put the argument

consecutively for a few minutes and that he should not punctuate the debate as a toll gate so that we have to pay toll to him before we succeed in getting in. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to pay my due and pass on.
It may be that even if we did that it would be no surrender of our legal sovereignty. But if that is the form in which he uses the name of legal sovereignty, it does not mean very much. In substance, such an act by the House would be an immense transference of powers away from the House to the other body or person to whom they were surrendered. In my opinion a major matter would be at stake, whether it was called legal sovereignty or not.
My right hon. Friend went on to the second part of the argument. Having disposed of this legal question by what I believe to be quibble, he proceeded to say that all the rest of these matters were merely matters of judgment, that there was nothing original, nothing new, nothing fresh or different about what was proposed in the Bill and in the allegiance to the Community.
But this is where I believe my right hon. Friend is so grossly misleading in what he says. The transference of power away from the House to other irresponsible and undemocratic bodies is different from that which the House has contemplated at any other time, so far as I can recall. There will be the transference of power over future taxation, the decision of the House here and now that we shall decide that in 1980 and 1990 we shall be committed, subject to the revocation of the whole of this apparatus, to a value-added tax. I am glad that my hon. and right hon. Friends detest that tax strongly and will march shoulder to shoulder through the lobbies to contest it during the months ahead, although we must have such a tax in order to get into the Community. My hon. and right hon. Friends will have to explain that inconsistency when we come to the time, and I shall be happy to listen to their explanations. To say that transference is similar to the transference we would undertake in any case seems to me a misuse of language.
It is not only a question of taxation, as has been proved in the debates on Clause 1. The Clause transfers the


legislative power away from the House on a scale that we have never previously contemplated, and perhaps even on a scale that the Government did not realise. The Lord Advocate shakes his head, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not quite so certain. I say this partly because of my well-known charitable nature and partly also because I have listened to what has been said in the debate. At the end of some of our debates the Solicitor-General, in order to escape from the illogical dilemmas in which he found himself enmeshed, said that if we did not like what was in Clause 1, if we did not find the affirmative Resolution procedure satisfactory for dealing with these matters, there were other parliamentary devices which could be used.
We said, very naturally, to the Government, "If there are other alternative procedures for dealing with these matters, why not put them in the Clause? If there are Acts that can deal with some of these measures, why not state it in the Clause?" We invited the Government to do so. We put down Amendments for that purpose. They were all rejected. So although we might say that the Government were innocent when they introduced the Bill in not recognising the scale of the change in the legislative process that was to be contemplated, they cannot be innocent at the end, because once the argument had been presented to them they still rejected it.
1.30 a.m.
I have always said in the House that anybody would be a fool who did not respect the opinions and the sincerity of those who express the view of my right hon. Friend. But we on this side are entitled to ask that they should give their minds to the consideration of the Bill, that in our future debates they should tell us whether they agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), when he described the Bill yesterday as a brief and brutal Bill. If it is a much more brutal Bill than ever a Labour Government would have introduced to try to secure these purposes, let them debate these matters and see where we go.
I believe that if my right hon. and hon. Friends had been willing to come and listen to these debates on the Bill

they would have been horrified at what has been proposed. They would have been outraged. I think they would have learnt something they have denied in recent weeks, that some of us have done our best to concentrate our attention on the nature of the Bill. I am not arguing that there is not something inherent in entry into the European Community to which I object. But there have been additions to the Bill. That is the argument we have had with the Government. I can prove it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who looks as if he wants to interrupt. Perhaps I can make his interruption superfluous. Owing to the ruling of the Chair——.If the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers to interrupt, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Rippon: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say something pertinent, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member says that some right hon. and hon. Members have been absent from our debates. I think that if they had been present they would have learnt that there is nothing in the Bill in any way contradictory to what was said by a Labour Lord Chancellor on 8th May, 1967, and contained in the Labour Government's White Paper on legal and constitutional implications. It may be a brutal Bill. I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smiith) called it—[Interruption.] He did not call it wicked. My right hon. and learned Friend said it was an honest Bill. He said that it was perfectly clear.

Mr. Foot: As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment on whether I was about to make pertinent remarks, if he intends to intervene he might improve his courtesy.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman pressed me to intervene.

Mr. Foot: I am not arguing at this moment, though I am prepared to argue, as we have, that it is not sufficient for Ministers, in order to defend their Bill, to go back to the legal implications of the White Paper of 1967. What I can prove beyond all argument is that this Bill in many particulars goes far beyond what is necessary to secure entry into the Common Market. It takes liberties


or licence with the procedures of the House in a manner which goes far beyond what is reasonable. That is proved not by me or by any Opposition spokesman in this debate but by the Chair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not fully appreciated the argument about the ruling of the Chair. Once the Chair laid down at the beginning of our debates that the only Amendments which could be called were the so-called nuts and bolts Amendments and that we were not entitled to get at the Treaty of Accession itself, the matter was made clear for all to see. It was a doctrine which I disputed. I thought that the Chairman of Ways and Means was wrong in his judgment, and we moved a Motion of censure on the Chair on that account. But I am not reopening that argument. I am drawing the deduction from the decision.
The Chair laid down at the outset that every Amendment to Clause 1 which has been selected, and to the other Clauses, too, for that matter, could properly be passed by the House and still the Bill could be compatible with the treaties signed by the Government. If that were not so, one could only conclude that the Chair has allowed us to debate Amendments which were out of order, and I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not be guilty of any such delinquency.
Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman need not take it from me, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East and for Manchester, Cheetham, who have been so worried about these matters, can vote for all our Amendments with an absolutely clear conscience. They do not offend their fastidious principles in any way.
Some question was raised by one of my right hon. Friends on another occasion about not liking the idea of going into the Lobby to vote for Amendments moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I know how fastidious they are about where they vote. But I know, also, how carefully they examine these questions. They need not worry. The Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman was

fully compatible with entry into the Common Market. The authority for that rests with the Chair.
I have always held the view that entry into the Common Market would be contrary to the interests of the British people, contrary to the best interests of our democracy, and contrary to the best ideas of democratic Socialism. But it is not on that basis that I have sought to lead the Opposition against the Bill in the House. That was not the commission which I was given. I was given the commission by my party, by the party meeting, and by the leader of my party, to conduct the fight on the basis of what has been laid down by the Labour Party.
Therefore, although we all know that different views are held about entry or non-entry into the Common Market, I find it rather strange that some of my right hon. Friends did not realise what had been happening. I could only conclude that the reason for that misunderstanding was that they had not been attending our debates. Now that they have decided to do so and things have turned out the way they have, perhaps we shall be able to resolve these questions, and they will be able to go into the Lobbies in future to assist us, even when there is a danger of defeating the Government.

Mr. George Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcoe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and myself to the debates. Our absence from them was due, as is, I think, generally recognised, to our enforced silence until this moment. My hon. Friend has said that he was charged with a certain duty by the leader of the party and by the party generally. As we understood it, the duty was to state to the House that the Opposition remain in principle in favour of entering the European Economic Community but against the terms negotiated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
My hon. Friend has been kind enough to quote more than once the phrase I used yesterday to the effect that the Bill is briefer and more brutal than the Bill which a Labour Government would have introduced. He did not go on to quote what I said thereafter, that this may be


due to the fact that the present Government face a different parliamentary situation from that which a Labour Government might have faced.
I respect my hon. Friend as a great parliamentarian, and I am more than ready to join with him in his opposition to the particular means which the Government may take regarding implementing Britain's accession to the Treaty of Rome. But I ask him to state unequivocally from that Front Bench, quite apart from the question of the economic terms, on which we disagree, whether he is against the degree of surrender of sovereignty and the subordination of our legislation inherent in entry when we were the Government.

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend knows my view. It has been clearly stated, as his has been, throughout. There is no point or intelligence in my trying to deceive the Committee, because it knows my position. When the application was made in 1967, I voted against it. I believed then and still believe that entry into the Common Market on these terms and the acceptance of these institutions in the unqualified manner proposed involved the danger of an infringement of the rights of decision-making by the House. I have not altered my view. If my right hon. Friend says, therefore, that on that account I am disqualified from speaking from this bench on behalf of my party, he must consult the other members of the party to see what the situation is. Considerable latitude was allowed to him and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who took what may be an extreme view on this subject. I propose to continue on the course of trying to state to the Committee my views and to perform that function in a manner which conforms also to the rights and claims and official policy of the party to which I am proud to belong. I hope that he understands that as well.

Mr. Harold Lever: Does my hon. Friend think that the terms in which he invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and I to vote with the party tonight were in conformity with the general encouragement to unity in which he invited us to vote even at the risk of bringing down the Government?

Mr. Foot: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham, and

my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, consider the terms in which they addressed the Committee yesterday and again today, they must understand that other members of the Labour Party have the right to reply to what they said. I do not believe anyone has the right to complain of the manner in which I have replied to them. I have replied to them in a spirit of good temper, but I have the right to reply, because accusations have been made to which we are entitled to state our retort. The Labour Party officially believes that the dangers of entry on the terms agreed by the Government are greatly heightened by the nature of the Bill, which we have sought to modify by every form of Amendment, which the Government have consistently rejected.
1.45 a.m.
This Clause, which does not state clearly what it is about, suppresses realities. It pretends that the affirmative Resolution procedure is a proper protection for dealing with huge legislative matters, when already the House of Commons is unable to deal with many such matters in this way. At the same time we are to entrust the future decision-making powers of the House, with no protection except in certain circumstances, to the affirmative Resolution procedure which derives us of the effective legislative power which the House has held for generations.
After all these discussions and arguments from all sides of the Committee, the Government still maintain that this Clause is so accurate, so infallible that they will not alter a comma or a subsection. They will not examine any matter; they will not include the names of the treaties. For the Government to treat the Committee in this manner on a Bill of this significance is an offence against the whole spirit of Parliament.
To end on a happier note, we have the comments of the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who added to the gaiety of the occasion by saying that he thought that one of the causes of all this trouble about the full-hearted consent which we were supposed to have for this Measure, but which we have not got, was the fact that the Prime Minister was the prisoner of his own


rhetoric. If I thought of the Prime Minister being a prisoner of anything, then if that is the case, these are slender bonds indeed!
Often when I hear the Prime Minister talking on this subject of full-hearted consent, it seems that on this matter he is most on the defensive. He hates to have the question raised. He thinks almost that it is an indecency for anyone to recite these words. Whenever it happens, he summons up all his great resources of self-righteousness, gives a passable imitation of Lord Long ford setting off to do good deeds in darkest Soho and turns on us as if it were an outrage that we should raise such a question. Now we have the explanation: it was not because the Prime Minister was cal-

culating that these words might assist him to get a few votes—not him. He was not trying to squeeze this question of full-hearted consent in between pledges about prices and unemployment. Nothing of the sort. No, it is just because it was one of those occasions when the Prime Minister's words ran away with him, when he did not know where they were carrying him! As a result, the Conservative Party committed itself to the extraordinary proposition that the people should be consulted. But he did not mean it. On that happy note, I hope that we can all go into the Lobby and vote against the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 152, Noes 135.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
1.48 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Awdry, Daniel
Havers, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Batsford, Brian
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Benyon, W.
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boscawen, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Burden, F. A.
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Lane, David
Soref, Harold


Churchill, W. S.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Critchley, Julian
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
Madel, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tilney, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle
Wall, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilkinson, John


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Younger, Hn. George


Gummer, Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Oscar Murton and



Page, John (Harrow, W.)
 Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Armstrong, Ernest
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Baxter, William
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R. T.


Biffen, John
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Body, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Nell
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, Edward


Carter, Ray(Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Leonard, Dick
Ross,Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton.N.E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dempsey, James
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


English, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Henry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Milne, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry S.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moate, Roger



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FORTHE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
 Mr. John Golding.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

GOOLE

2.0 a.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The port and town of Goole, which I have the honour to represent, is only some 150 years old. Until the 1820s there was little to speak of there. But then, with

the building of the Aire and Calder Navigation system of canals reaching the river Ouse at Goole, the place became the hub of a waterway network stretching far across the West Riding. At the confluence of the canal and the river, the Aire and Calder Navigation developed the dock estate, round which the town grew. The traditional basic trade was the transfer of coal brought down the canals from Yorkshire pits for shipment either abroad or round the coast. Goole thrived on its advantages of being the country's most inland port. But without the canals and the coal trade, and without the docks, there would never have been a town of Goole.

In 1947 the ownership of the Aire and Calder Navigation passed into public hands, so that today the canals with their commercial freight services belong to the British Waterways Board and the docks to the British Transport Docks


Board, which is also the navigation authority for the lower reaches of the Ouse. Public ownership of these facilities ought to have been greatly to Goole's advantage, enabling the heavy dependence of the town on the docks and canals to be reflected in the policies of the respective boards. But this hope has diminished over the years with the growing independence of the boards and the abdication of all responsibility for board policies by the present Government, whose attitude generally is that public enterprise should be run on unmitigated commercial lines.

These trends have been accompanied by a steady fall in the coal trade, due partly to the contraction of coal output and partly to the collapse of coastal trade in coal for gas manufacture and electricity generation. I wonder whether anybody ultimately responsible for fuel policies ever gave a thought to the impact of his decisions on ports like Goole. Solid fuel shipments through Goole have declined from 1,494,376 tons in 1969 to 839,798 tons in 1971, with a further drop likely in the present year. A contraction at this rate in the staple trade of any port threatens to have widespread social repercussions.

In these circumstances the people of Goole are keenly searching for new trade. With an unemployment rate in the town of 6·6 per cent. and a large daily exodus of manpower, no opportunity can be lost of bringing business to the port. The British Waterways Board is developing facilities under the names of BACAT and LASH which enable canal barges to be shipped overseas aboard specially built ocean-going vessels, ready for further journeys on inland waterways round the world. Goods could thus be transferred from Barnsley to Basle or from Leeds to St. Louis in the same barge all the way. Obviously, Goole would be a key centre for such trade.

Yet the Government are threatening to dismantle the British Waterways Board, belittling the board's commercial activities, and may even sell off the freight services to private interests. Any fragmentation of the inland waterways network would threaten to diminish one of Goole's traditional sources of trade. In the interests of Goole, the Govern-

ment should keep their hands off the present structure of the British Waterways Board.

Meanwhile, severe blows to Goole's chances of attracting more shipping trade have been dealt by the British Transport Docks Board. Last July the dues for vessels using the docks were raised by 20 per cent., and the board has recently announced a further increase of 10 per cent. to be applied from 1st May this year. Changes on this scale do not accord with the Government's undertaking that price increases in the nationalised industries should be limited to the CBI norm of 5 per cent. per year.

The Government have paid no attention to their own calls for price restraint. Instead, they have insisted that the docks board fix prices at levels calculated to enable each individual port to balance its books, and they have rejected the suggestion that the board should adopt policies of cross-subsidisation to help small towns which are heavily dependent on their local dock trade.

In Goole's case, the last available financial accounts, which are for the year 1970, show on the docks an operating surplus of £12,000, but payment of interest charges of £70.000 has led to a final deficit of £58,000. These interest charges, derived through the marvels and mysteries of accountancy, could be wiped out by a single stroke of Government initiative, as has happened elsewhere among nationalised industries.

Such action by the Government would complement the policy announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 21st March: namely, that a new system of regional development grants would also be available
for schemes which safeguard existing employment and for straightforward modernisation."—[Official Report, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1367.]

To safeguard employment in Goole docks the Government should now wipe out the outstanding debt of the British Transport Docks Board, thereby removing any need for increased dues. I call upon the Government to take this action immediately and prove the seriousness of their intentions to give extra help to intermediate areas. Without action of


that kind, the problems of Goole will persist.

It is unlikely that these increased dues will help the docks board to balance its books; they are more likely to diminish trade and make the situation in the long run even worse. Although the port is well reputed for quick turn around times and good labour relations, there axe signs that the increased dues will drive shippers away.

In the last fortnight, for example, the weekly service run by the Board Export Line to Delfzijl in the northern Netherlands, which has used Goole Docks for 40 years, has been transferred elsewhere solely on account of the increased dues. What is more, many vessels which might have been expected to bring trade to Goole are now using private unregistered river quays on the River Ouse at Selby and Howden Dyke and on the River Trent at Burton upon Stather. In the six months January to June, 1971, there were 1,200 berthings at these private quays. The growing use of these wharves, with their cut-price dues because they are not covered by national dock agreements, particularly injures Goole, since these places cater only for vessels of small draught on which Goole is wholly dependent.

Ports which can accommodate vessels of deeper draught are little affected by this diversion of smaller vessels. Perhaps the Government believe that these pirate ports provide healthy competition, but no such competition can be fair when Goole is saddled with heavy interest charges. The river quays would provide competition on equal terms only if they, too, were brought within the ownership of the British Transport Docks Board.

Furthermore, dock dues at Goole include amounts payable in respect of a toll on the River Ouse, introduced by those (Lower) Improvement Act, 1884. At present there is no collection of this toll for vessels using the Ouse to reach the unregistered quays higher up the river, and so again trade in Goole docks suffers from unfair discrimination in this way.

The Government should enable the docks board to levy the Ouse toll on these vessels which bypass Goole. Indeed, the whole question of river dues payable on all vessels on the Lower Ouse and Lower Trent is something to which the Govern-

ment, through the BTDB, should give detailed attention, fixing a level of dues which ensures that competition from unregistered quays is on a fair basis.

To sum up, I should like on behalf of the whole community of Goole to ask the Government to reduce the difficulties now facing the port through no fault of its own. If the Government refuse to take action, my constituents can only assume that it is the policy of the Government that the roots of Goole's whole existence should be eaten away.

2.12 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has spoken about a number of difficult problems of which I accept he has considerable personal knowledge, and I do not blame him in the least for making a number of quite good constituency points, even though his economics are very shaky.
The hon. Gentleman's constituency includes the port of Goole, to which I paid a flying visit last week, flying quite low over the quays there in order to see something of the Trent and Ouse from the air. Goole, like the other main Humber ports, is administered by the British Transport Docks Board, and its difficulties, which have been exercising the mind of the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, my own for several months, are common to all the board's Humber ports, and not least to the great port of Hull.
During my visit last week I was impressed, above all else, on the transport side by the contrast between this whole area's splendid potential—the great rivers, a magnificent estuary, the vast new industries of steel, chemicals, petroleum, and so on, and its location directly opposite the Common Market port of Rotterdam—and the much less impressive, even the lagging, condition of its shipbuilding and ports industries.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the commercial situation of the Humber ports, including both Goole and Hull, has been deteriorating steadily for some years. Costs have been rising, and traffic, taken as a whole, has been falling though there have been some exceptions. The reasons for this decline are complex, and I am sure that it would be rash of me to try to pinpoint particular causes, but the


House may recall that we had an Adjournment debate earlier this year about the situation of the Humber ports, arising out of a proposal by the BTDB to close to William Wright and Albert Docks at Hull.
The Board had reached that decision because of the mounting losses at Hull, which, I am sorry to say, will be shown to have risen to about £900,000 last year when its accounts are published, and that happened despite all the efforts of the Board to reduce costs and increase revenue.
I emphasise again tonight what I said in the last debate; namely, that the Government are just as much concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite about the human and social problems involved in dock closures and reduced activity at our ports. We care a great deal about the present and future employment prospects on Humberside, including in the Port of Goole.
Only last week I met union representatives on board the ferry across the Humber. I was glad to meet them. I wish again to make it clear that decisions about the future of the ports and the day-to-day management at Goole must be a matter for the board and its local management committees.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was abdication on the part of the Government.

Dr. Marshall: Dr. Marshall rose——

Mr. Griffiths: "Abdication" was the word that the hon. Member used. Does he really imagine that Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall offices are capable of running the day-to-day operations of a port? If he imagines such a thing, I must inform him that he is out of touch with commercial activity.

Dr. Marshall: The Government have abdicated their political responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter of opinion. It would be wrong for Ministers or officials to seek to interfere in either the day-to-day running of the port, or, indeed, the board's decisions about the capacity and location of the docks it thinks are needed, or are not needed, to meet its requirements.
Since my talk with the union leaders I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied that the board is in no way lacking in recognition of the human problems involved. So far as possible it is trying to deal with redundancies, where they occur, in a humane fashion and by voluntary severance agreements covering the port as a whole.
It is fair to add that the situation of the Humber ports would, in any case, have been difficult over recent years because of the general trade recession, from which, happily, there are signs that we are now emerging. I am bound to add, however, that the difficulties of these ports have been made worse by needless industrial disputes.
I need not tonight weary the House by listing all of them, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there have been a whole series of one-day strikes, frequently without notice, and that there are cases where bans have been placed on the mobility of labour as between one particular part of a hatch of a ship and another and unofficial bans on containers. The situation is that if shippers cannot count on good service and the prompt handling of their goods they will take their trade away from those ports, which will suffer the consequences.
Goole, which is situated near the mouth of the Yorkshire Ouse, is a port traditionally associated with coal traffic, which has been steadily declining, though it is still important. The port also handles other bulk cargoes, such as ores, chemicals, timber and general cargoes including wool and foodstuffs. In recent years the management has aimed at diversifying the port's trade, and a new development in this context has been the successful import of motor cars from France.
Mention of Goole's traditional traffics brings me to the various points upon which the hon. Gentleman laid stress. One was waterways. I agree absolutely with him that the prospects for BACAT and LASH may well be good. I am very interested to see whether we can achieve progress with these techniques in this country. But I must reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are proposing in any way to run down the commercial aspects of the British waterways. Only the day before yesterday I met the commercial carriers at the Department of


the Environment and had a detailed discussion with them. I was able to tell them that if they are able, with the British Waterways Board, to put forward any sensible, viable schemes for the promotion of commercial traffic on the waterways, my Department will be very glad to look at them and, hopefully, will seek to help them wherever possible. There is no question of our writing down or writing off the commercial development of the waterways wherever that is appropriate and commercially viable.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of price restraint in the ports and complained of some rise in the charges in Goole. The charges are imposed simply to enable the port to pay its way; and it is very difficult for the port to pay its way. But I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it should not try. His remedy was to wipe out the British Transport Docks Board's debt. This is one of those facile solutions so frequently put forward from the benches opposite. But I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would apply the same logic to the private companies operating some of the private docks that he has complained about. Would he write off their debt as well? Is it not a fact that they, too, must carry the capital charges of their business?
The hon. Gentleman said that all would be different if the Government would intervene, write off the debts and allow the British Transport Docks Board to start again. However, the British Transport Docks Board welcomes the opportunity to manage its business in a commercial fashion. That is the only real test of whether or not the traffic can be carried in a sensible way.
I now refer to the growing use of private riverside wharves on the Humber, the Ouse and the Trent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some figures. It is difficult to be sure of the actual amount of movement, but there can be little doubt, I think, that trade over those wharves has increased appreciably in the last year or two. By now it is substantial, though in absolute terms the increase can easily be exaggerated in relation to the total traffic of the Humber.
The hon. Gentleman asked, in effect, what the Government propose to do about the situation. Regarding the use of riverside wharves, clearly there can be

no question of Government intervention. The decision on what port facilities to use must be a matter for the commercial judgment of traders and ship owners themselves. There may be many reasons for their choice: convenience, price, and reliability of service. But only they can make it. It is not the business of Government to try to make their decisions for them. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has no locus to intervene, even if he wanted to. He has no power to do so.
So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that traders have, and must have, the right and the freedom to decide for themselves whether they should use the facilities offered by Goole or by any other of the British Transport Docks Board ports. It is for them to judge and decide whether the services provided by the riverside wharves are more or less suitable and attractive to their business.
A better solution to the problem of the riverside wharves is for the regular ports to offer a better service, and that means simply improving the performance at the board's Humber ports as well. It requires better relations between mangement and labour so that the port users can feel confident of obtaining a first class service, and over recent years that is exactly what they have been unable to count on.
For all who care for these ports and all who have an interest in them—the docks board, other port employers, representatives of the port workers and users and indeed, the hon. Gentleman—the right solution must surely be to co-operate in their own interests so as to revive and improve the fortunes of their port.
I believe that the future can be a good one, for in one sense Goole, with the other Humber ports, is already start-ting to benefit from the brighter prospects of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
I mentioned the import of French cars intended for distribution in the north of England and Scotland. This began in Goole tentatively only a few months ago, and I understand that it is now going very well. There should be good prospects of increased traffic for the Humber in other directions. The area is well situated geographically in relation to the Low Countries, Germany and Scandinavia. It is at the end of the belt of ports


streching from the Humber to Southampton which can be expected to derive most benefit from this country's joining the European Community.
Moreover, the Humber has immense natural advantages—deep water and good modern port facilities, and it is strategically well placed in relation to the Midlands and the industrial North. The road links to these areas will soon be greatly improved by the completion of the M62, which was accorded special priority in the Government's recent White Paper. The Humber Bridge will also provide an entirely new link between the two sides of the river.
So the prospects of increased traffic are there, for the Humber, for Goole, and for the whole country. The port should benefit from the Common Market, and I believe that, provided only that managements and employees are ready to meet the challenges of our time—I mean by that to meet competition from all comers, including the riverside wharves—there is no real reason why they cannot make a better future for those who work in the ports and for their region as a whole, and in so doing benefit the nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Two o'clock